Check Isolation Px vs Isolation Dx

Theoretically isolation tasks should correspond to coded diagnoses requiring isolation. If so, we might be able to implement a data integrity check for this. Because all information required this check should be done in CCMDB.mdb rather than in CCMDB Cleaner.mdb.

= Truth vs. consistency

Do we actually want to know that isolation happened or that it should have. If a diagnosis that should have had isolation happened and isolation was not put in place, we would want it to be not coded, right? If all we want is to have isolation coded for every dx that needs it, then maybe we don't need to code it at all and should simply consider all with those dxs as isolation.

= limited # of dxs can be coded

We can only code a limited number of dxs, so the dx requiring isolation may not be coded. We could suspend the check if either admit or acquired fields are full.

Definition of the check

In an ideal world, patients with the following diagnoses would be isolated and therefore have an isolation task:

• 99-22
• 99-24
• 99-48
• are there others? Ttenbergen 12:48, 2012 November 7 (EST)Template:Discussion

include 84-48 & 85-48?

• • ??84-48 & 85-48 - Trish to check with Dr. Kumar.
    • collectors are not certain if colonized or just site infection.
      • not sure what this means. if his is relating to how collection is supposed to happen than this is probably not the place to discuss it...Ttenbergen 16:47, 2012 November 5 (EST)Template:Discussion

Full DX column not required?

• If the Isolations code is present then full dx column is not needed in the output.

PTorres 17:07, 21 October 2008 (CDT)

• • what does this mean? Ttenbergen 16:47, 2012 November 5 (EST)Template:Discussion

Implementation

suspect this is not implemented right now, if we want it implemented it needs to go into Requested Changes. Ttenbergen 16:47, 2012 November 5 (EST) Template:Potential change