CCMDB.accdb Data Integrity Checks

This page lists pages that have CCMDB Data Integrity Checks on them, the status of those checks if available, and the page's last modification date.

See Template:Data Integrity Check for how to get things on this list.

CCMDB Data Integrity Checks (SMW)

Current number of CCMDB.accdb Data Integrity Checks: 99

	Status	questions	who
Check APACHE physiological variable high low	implemented
Query check minimal data set incomplete	implemented
Function Validate Previous Location	implemented
Query check previous location vs service inconsistent	implemented
Query check prev pre-admit consistent	implemented
Function Validate previous service	implemented
Query s tmp project item consistent	implemented
Query s tmp apostrophe in comment	implemented
Function Validate PHIN	implemented
Function PHIN same as Chart	implemented
Function Validate Province	implemented
Date of Birth	implemented
Function Validate Dispo	implemented
Query check dx primary not exactly one	implemented
Query check dx primary lowest priority	implemented
Query check ICD10 date	implemented
Query check ICD10 unfilled	implemented
Query check CCI no admin entries	implemented
Query check CCI Date	implemented
Query check CCI Component unfilled	implemented
Query check CCI Picklist unfilled	implemented
Query check CCI component 1 and 2 compatible	implemented
Check AcceptDtTm entered or missing checked	implemented
Check Function Validate PostalCode	implemented
Check function Validate Last name	implemented
Check function Validate First name	implemented
Check function location NE dispo	implemented
Check function previous NE Location	implemented
Check Accept Loc Park	implemented
Check Sub PharmCheck	implemented
Check duplicate patient	implemented
Check function Validate Pre Acute Living Situation	implemented
Query check cooling vs arrest	implemented
Query check hernia type vs complication	implemented
Query check AIDS vs HIV	implemented
Query s tmp QASeptic tmp no dx	implemented
Query s tmp IICU consult DtTm	implemented
Query check ICD10 Comorbids NoComo code but others	implemented
Query check ICD10 Comorbids Dx present	implemented
Check Inf Pathogens must have Infection requiring pathogen or Potential Infection	implemented
Check Inf Antibiotic resistance must have pathogen or Infection with implied pathogen	implemented
Check Inf Infection with implied pathogen must not have a pathogen combined code	implemented
Function Validate Chart	implemented
Sub Dx Checker	implemented
Query check ICD10 ESRD vs kidney transplant	implemented
Function Validate Pre admit Inpatient Institution	implemented
Query check CCI Picklist duplicates	implemented
Query check CCI Component duplicates	implemented
Query s tmp QASeptic Dx no tmp ICD10	implemented
Query s tmp comfort care gt one	implemented
Query s tmp ABO TEE checks	implemented
Check function preAdmit NE Location	implemented
Query s tmp IICU consult dispo to IICU but no tmp	implemented
Query send check centralized is owner	implemented
Function Dispo Chronological()	implemented
Query check ICD10 mechanism vs trauma	implemented
Query check ICD10 Inf Infection req Pathogen must have one	implemented
Query check ICD10 only 1 stage of renal failure	implemented
Query check ICD10 chronic vent acute resp failure	implemented
Query check CCI from OR no CCI	implemented
Query check tmp generate allowed	implemented
Query s tmp Boarding Loc date item	implemented	if we enter unit info from Cognos, then the unit start date and time for the initial boarding loc will almost always be before the accept date and time. So I have removed that cross check for now so we can decide how we want to do this. I think we should enter the unit start from Cognos; this will be easier, less typo-prone, and it will allow us to eventually move to a system where we simply import this from Cognos possibly without human intervention (or in any case, possibly with only administrative intervention rather than from nurse data collector). It would mean treating this data differently to screen out the time on unit before service, and it would mean we can no longer cross check for this. We will need to review out cross-checks anyway, we don't have one for services yet at all. Emailing Julie for input. Regardless of the what we decide, we will need to clarify this in Boarding Loc since collectors are likely entering this first boarding slightly differently. Ttenbergen 16:48, 2020 November 6 (CST)	Julie
Query s tmp Boarding Loc no borrow but entry	implemented
Query check tmp service or location duplicate	implemented
Query check tmp service and program consistency	implemented
Query check tmp ER Boarding Loc should exist if from ER	implemented
Query check CCI if no then none	implemented
Query check CCI TISS NrDays GT LOS	implemented
Query check CCI TISS NrDays LT LOS	implemented
Query check CCI TISS if no then none	implemented
Query check ICD10 dx implying death must have appropriate dispo	implemented
Query check CCI TISS Intubation vs Intubated	implemented
Query check ICD10 awaiting has Transfer Ready DtTm	implemented
Query check CCI TISS Vented without mechanism	implemented
Query check transfer DtTm during admission	implemented
Query check CCI TISS Pharm Vasoactive	implemented
Query check ICD10 Inf Potential Infection must have pathogen or alt	implemented	This cross checks is causing problems. Most NOS codes are listed as potential infections, and therefore now require the "no infection" code to be combined, but many of the "NOS" codes should maybe not be in the "potential infection" category? Or maybe this check just should not be done? Looking for input. Ttenbergen 10:24, 2021 April 14 (CDT) Suggestion: Also create an optional "is an infection" code with no cross checks for either? Pamela Piche 11:16, 2021 April 14 (CDT)	Task
Query s tmp check combined Boarding Loc and TransferReadyDtTm	implemented
Query query s tmp check Boarding Loc and TransferReadyDtTm pairs	implemented
Query check long transfer delay	needs review	Requiring notes to have content is really a very soft error check... do we need to consider something better? If we actually want a cross check like this it needs to be based not on NTU/CTU. We could either base it on specific units or on Level of care hierarchy, ie. add another column to s_level_of_care table. Would that work for you? Ttenbergen 23:08, 2020 October 15 (CDT) At the meeting about cross checks (a long time ago) it was decided to change the cut-off to SD*3; if we want to proceed with this check, I will need values for that. Ttenbergen 23:08, 2020 October 15 (CDT)	Julie
Controlling Dx Type for ICD10 codes	needs review	Como Admit Acquired Primary Limits 1/ Dx grouping - this is part of both of those discussion I have emailed Allan the table with all Dxs to set them as Como_allowed, Admit_allowed, Acquired_allowed. Will set up infrastructure to contain this once I have data. Ttenbergen 12:31, 2019 February 13 (CST) Allan won't have a chance to review until at least mid Sept 2019	Allan
Check pre acute consistent	needs review	what exactly do we want to check for? Please also have a look at the stuff below that doesn't specifically have your name. This requested check ties into a bunch of things and if we want the check we need to be sure that instructions stay consistent and lose ends are tied up. from a data perspective, what do you mean by "admitted directly"? If I were to build a check, where would I find that? OR maybe I don't need to know, but then I need to have a definition of what combination of data would be an error. Integrity check if Previous Location field ='Home' then Pre acute living situation field is either Apartment, Assisted Living,Supportive Housing,Prison / Jail / Correctional Institution or House; otherwise Error. if Previous Location field = 'Deer Lodge' or 'Riverview' or 'St Amant' then Pre acute living situation field = Chronic Health Facility; otherwise Error. if Previous Location field = 'any PCH location' then Pre acute living situation field = Personal Care Home; otherwise Error. ... unless they are discharged somewhere else entirely, like another ward. So what do we really mean with this? That they can't come from one PCH and go to another or maybe "home" after all? I realize this maybe hard to do. what I mean here is that if one is already a PCH resident, when leaving the hospital, the dispo location must be a PCH location too. or is a patient is already in CHF, the destination when leaving the hospital must either be a CHF or another PCH. The listed postal codes are correlated to the items ‘PCH’ and ‘Chronic Health facility’ of the Pre-Acute Living Situation. Since the data collectors are collecting the postal code from the patient’s address, will it be possible to automatically fill up the Pre-Acute Living Situation as PCH or Chronic Health facility if the PCH postal codes are entered or ‘other ways’ to link the two fields and make them consistent. Info about PCH is now getting more attention/request. Tina, Will this be hard to do? Any suggestions? I have changed my mind to add the PCH postal code to the Postal_Code_Master due to the possible effect on its size (when adding a new column containing text where most of the records will only be blanks). It is better to have it in separate table since this pertains to Winnipeg area only. I have added the exact address of these PCH facilities - link to table in email sent on Jan 12.18 at 1224 hrs from p:Julie Mojica Is any change to CFE still required then? If not, please remove this discussion and heading. Ttenbergen 15:47, 2019 July 4 (CDT) How does Chronic Health Facility fit into this? Or Imprisonment/incarceration and other info in Prison / Jail / Correctional Institution? There was talk about comparing Postal Codes to known PCH Postal Codes. Since these might include other buildings at the same site that are not PCHs, this check can at best be a soft check. Please add the list of these postal codes here.	Julie
Check ICD10 some cant be primary	needs review	Como Admit Acquired Primary Limits - Category:Mechanism would need to be excluded as well, and so would past history, and quickly the list gets so large again that we are back at discussing Controlling Dx Type for ICD10 codes where we should simply include "Primary"-ability. AG OBSERVATION --- we will just take care of this when we take care of Admit/Comorbid/Acquired	Allan
Query check CCI must have entry	needs review	Patients without CCI entries are slipping through and found by PL missing L Tables content , must fix PTorres 09:42, 2019 February 7 (CST) I seem to remember discussing this with Pagasa. There was a misconception that a "no CCIs" had to be present in both component and picklist, but that is not true: it only needs to be in the Picklist. Is this still a problem? If so, please tell me an example when one comes up. Michelle sent email 2019-10-31 that she was able to click "D" with no CCIs entered. I tested on my copy and got an error when I tried. Will need more info about the scenarios where this can slip through.	Pagasa
Query check ICD10 duplicates	needs review
Query TISS Errors ETT consistent	needs review	A patient might arrive intubated, so there would be no intubation. Does this check really make sense? Ttenbergen 23:23, 2019 March 25 (CDT) I have revised the conditions, pls check if they now make sense.--JMojica 16:38, 2019 July 9 (CDT) Actually, no: Someone can arrive intubated from another ICU and then be extubated their first day here. I don't see how Insertion can be included in these two. Ttenbergen 20:13, 2020 December 2 (CST)	Julie
Check CCI CXR vs LOS	needs review	would we not use Accept DtTm here? Because we could have CXRs on days before arrival...	Julie
Query check ER Delay not too big	needs review
Query check ICD10 trach dxs consistent	needs review
Query TISS Errors NrTISSDays NE LOS	needs review	Is this check actually needed? Query check CCI Date already checks to make sure the entries are all within the admission. There might be more than one TISS entry per day (also see Query check CCI Picklist duplicates) We need to accommodate a second TISS entry on days for which there is a ?Boarding Loc entry, and that second entry must have a time (see Change to collect TISS data in CCI Picklist). Query TISS Errors missing days does something closely related	all
Query NDC Dxs vs TISS Dialysis	needs review	Would we need to add COVID to this before implementing?	all
Function long LOS()	needs review	Change from Service Location to Service, Boarding Loc and Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry changed Service/Location to aggregate values for the whole stay in a program. The values used in s_dispo table for the longest likely LOS were filled with previous entries from the same program, but should likely be longer now, since an aggregate stay would on average be longer. Once we have some data with the new aggregate model we should update these values.	Julie
Query check tmp Service and Boarding Loc during admission timeframe	needs review	Accept DtTm resp Arrive DtTm are largely duplication of the Service tmp entry and Boarding Loc dates and times. I believe we had discussed that we should therefore remove those fields eventually. So we should not implement a check now on fields we are planning to get rid of shortly. Even if we kept the fields, Accept DtTm is only to be entered for pts from ER, so would not always be there, and the Service tmp entry start dttm could well be before the arrive dttm.	all
Query TISS Errors CAM positive vs Dx	needs review	AJTT I started implementing this and then started wondering if there might be many more dxs that may or may not cause CAM positive (eg Encephalopathy, NOS). Is this a reasonable check to run?	Task
Query check has service entry	needs review	This probably needs to be considered in context of Minimal Data Set - if it is part of that it changes the check time (ie for all records or only for complete records?).	Julie
Query NDC Trach Dx TISS	needs review
Query check has transfer ready date or checkbox	needs review	Currently only implemented without the comment cross checks because almost all collectors are not following the instructions. I had a hunch that at least some collectors aren't entering the comment field as instructed and wanted to know how common a problem this cross check would find, so I tweaked it to run in CFE and checked (SQL at bottom). There were over 1000. People seem to be using the field to indicate which TRDT is for which Boarding Loc. Which is reasonable, because hard to keep track of otherwise, but it means I can't do that check for now. Do we want to change the instructions to match what people are doing? Or change the cross check?	Task
Query NDC cardioversion dx vs TISS	needs review	Cardioversion (EXCLUDE defibrillation-we are not tracking) and T41 - Cardioversion (TISS Item) are very similar, should we continue to collect both? Ttenbergen 19:59, 2020 December 2 (CST)	Task
Query NDC CLI vs DX but no TISS17 CentralLine	needs review	T17 has been retired and replaced by CVC presence, any location. There is discussion on whether some changes in that batch will need to be reverted. If they are, then this cross-check would need to be re-defined.	all

Click here to see all checks including retired and declined ones