CCMDB.accdb Data Integrity Checks

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

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

Check APACHE physiological variable high lowimplemented
Query check minimal data set incompleteimplemented
Function Validate Previous Locationimplemented
Query check previous location vs service inconsistentimplemented
Query check prev pre-admit consistentimplemented
Function Validate previous serviceimplemented
Query s tmp project item consistentimplemented
Query s tmp apostrophe in commentimplemented
Function Validate PHINimplemented
Function PHIN same as Chartimplemented
Function Validate Provinceimplemented
Date of Birthimplemented
Function Validate Dispoimplemented
Query check dx primary not exactly oneimplemented
Query check dx primary lowest priorityimplemented
Query check ICD10 dateimplemented
Query check ICD10 unfilledimplemented
Query check CCI no admin entriesimplemented
Query check CCI Dateimplemented
Query check CCI Component unfilledimplemented
Query check CCI Picklist unfilledimplemented
Query check CCI component 1 and 2 compatibleimplemented
Check AcceptDtTm entered or missing checkedimplemented
Check Function Validate PostalCodeimplemented
Check function Validate Last nameimplemented
Check function Validate First nameimplemented
Check function location NE dispoimplemented
Check function previous NE Locationimplemented
Check Accept Loc Parkimplemented
Check Sub PharmCheckimplemented
Check duplicate patientimplemented
Check function Validate Pre Acute Living Situationimplemented
Query check cooling vs arrestimplemented
Query check hernia type vs complicationimplemented
Query check AIDS vs HIVimplemented
Query s tmp QASeptic tmp no dximplemented
Query s tmp IICU consult DtTmimplemented
Query check ICD10 Comorbids NoComo code but othersimplemented
Query check ICD10 Comorbids Dx presentimplemented
Check Inf Pathogens must have Infection requiring pathogen or Potential Infectionimplemented
Check Inf Antibiotic resistance must have pathogen or Infection with implied pathogenimplemented
Check Inf Infection with implied pathogen must not have a pathogen combined codeimplemented
Function Validate Chartimplemented
Sub Dx Checkerimplemented
Query check ICD10 ESRD vs kidney transplantimplemented
Function Validate Pre admit Inpatient Institutionimplemented
Query check CCI Picklist duplicatesimplemented
Query check CCI Component duplicatesimplemented
Query s tmp QASeptic Dx no tmp ICD10implemented
Query s tmp comfort care gt oneimplemented
Query s tmp ABO TEE checksimplemented
Check function preAdmit NE Locationimplemented
Query s tmp IICU consult dispo to IICU but no tmpimplemented
Query send check centralized is ownerimplemented
Function Dispo Chronological()implemented
Query check ICD10 mechanism vs traumaimplemented
Query check ICD10 Inf Infection req Pathogen must have oneimplemented
Query check ICD10 only 1 stage of renal failureimplemented
Query check ICD10 chronic vent acute resp failureimplemented
Query check CCI from OR no CCIimplemented
Query check tmp generate allowedimplemented
Query s tmp Boarding Loc date itemimplemented
  • 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)
Query s tmp Boarding Loc no borrow but entryimplemented
Query check tmp service or location duplicateimplemented
Query check tmp service and program consistencyimplemented
Query check tmp ER Boarding Loc should exist if from ERimplemented
Query check CCI if no then noneimplemented
Query check CCI TISS NrDays GT LOSimplemented
Query check CCI TISS NrDays LT LOSimplemented
Query check CCI TISS if no then noneimplemented
Query check ICD10 dx implying death must have appropriate dispoimplemented
Query check CCI TISS Intubation vs Intubatedimplemented
Query check ICD10 awaiting has Transfer Ready DtTmimplemented
Query check CCI TISS Vented without mechanismimplemented
Query check transfer DtTm during admissionimplemented
Query check CCI TISS Pharm Vasoactiveimplemented
Query check ICD10 Inf Potential Infection must have pathogen or altimplemented
  • 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)
Query s tmp check combined Boarding Loc and TransferReadyDtTmimplemented
Query query s tmp check Boarding Loc and TransferReadyDtTm pairsimplemented
Query check long transfer delayneeds 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)
Controlling Dx Type for ICD10 codesneeds reviewComo 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
Check pre acute consistentneeds reviewwhat 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

    • ... 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.
    Check ICD10 some cant be primaryneeds reviewComo 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
    Query check CCI must have entryneeds 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 duplicatesneeds review
    Query TISS Errors ETT consistentneeds 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)
    Check CCI CXR vs LOSneeds reviewwould we not use Accept DtTm here? Because we could have CXRs on days before arrival...Julie
    Query check ER Delay not too bigneeds review
    Query check ICD10 trach dxs consistentneeds review
    Query TISS Errors NrTISSDays NE LOSneeds reviewIs this check actually needed? all
    Query NDC Dxs vs TISS Dialysisneeds reviewWould we need to add COVID to this before implementing?all
    Function long LOS()needs reviewChange 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 timeframeneeds 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 Dxneeds reviewAJTT
    • 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?
    Query check has service entryneeds 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 TISSneeds review
    Query check has transfer ready date or checkboxneeds 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?
    Query NDC cardioversion dx vs TISSneeds review Task
    Query NDC CLI vs DX but no TISS17 CentralLineneeds 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.

    Click here to see all checks including retired and declined ones

    Related articles

    Related articles: