Page values for "Change of remaining location names from "our" names to EPR/Cognos names"

Change of remaining location names from "our" names to EPR/Cognos names

JALT - Is there anything here we want to do before SF? Or that still needs to be done at all? Ttenbergen 09:42, 2023 July 6 (CDT)

• What happens to the ICU Previous Location, Pre-admit Inpatient Institution, Dispo or even Service Location - should they be changed too by the new COGNOS ICU locations? Example current STB_ACCU is SBGH-CCUO in COGNOS, STB_CICU is SBGH_ICCS, STB_MICU is SBGH_ICMS. Should the old labels remain? We need to think hard for its implications to queries of linking and/or matching tables before implementing any change. --JMojica 16:33, 2022 February 2 (CST)
  • It would be nice to have this consistent, and yet you are correct that this would tie into a lot of things. I think the benefits of making it consistent win out, though especially when it comes to also thinking about this in terms of that metadata we discussed the other day. Even if we keep the (possibly identical) data in both s_tmp and s_dispo for now, we would then be able to use that metadata table for both. This would require thinking through the details. Julie, I think it only involves you and me, so maybe we should discuss at our wiki meetings? Ttenbergen 13:44, 2022 February 8 (CST)
    • Julie and Tina discussed:

• We use the 4 fields Previous Location, Pre-admit Inpatient Institution, Dispo and Service/Location also to map patient flow between laptops, and we very much don't use Cognos values for this (e.g. HSC_Med). We need to retain this ability to use the entries for linking but would also make them the same as Cognos where possible. So we need to keep our "own" values for this for locations where we collect.
• We decided to use manually split CC entries e.g. HSC_MICU vs HSC_SICU since Julie reports in those increments, ie it is hard to pull apart a stay in two ICU types if it is collected as one record. We don't want to lose that.
• We would still like to change these own values to the "modern" values where we use legacy terms, eg. STB ICMS vs STB MICU. As long as we make a clean transition between old and new, or change all old, that should not be a problem, but we need to account for it.
• We could use the Cognos values for all places where we don't collect, e.g. if a pt comes from Ward HSC_A1 and Cognos lists that as HSC-GA1, we could just enter that. However, for locations we don't collect we currently aggregate this to HSC_ward. Do we want the extra detail? It would be easier to enter but might be harder to interpret and possibly even harder to work with for collectors.
• If we want to keep our proprietary value for locations where we collect, and keep aggregate ones for locations where we don't collect, I am not sure which locations that then leaves where we would use the Cognos values?

• • • Julie, do you agree to that summary? If so, there may be nothing to discuss with Lisa, since we will need to leave this as is. If I am missing something pls update and then pass on to Lisa for her take. Ttenbergen 16:56, 2022 March 23 (CDT)
      • agree. pass to lisa. --JMojica 15:27, 2022 June 8 (CDT)
• I think this is no longer an issue, unless we are looking to change how we collect this, which I am not in favor of Lisa Kaita 12:23, 2022 August 24 (CDT)
  • Even though this is no longer an issue, we should keep the above 5 summary issues here for future reference. --JMojica 13:38, 2024 March 12 (CDT)