Query check CCI CXR vs LOS: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
{{CCMDB.accdb cross checks triggering for correct values}} | {{CCMDB.accdb cross checks triggering for correct values}} | ||
== disucssion == | |||
{{TT | | {{TT | | ||
* is there a function we can use for the threshold? That would be easier to implement than a list like that. If SAS as a way to generate functions (like excel does for its trendlines) then could you run that? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:02, 2021 September 2 (CDT) | * is there a function we can use for the threshold? That would be easier to implement than a list like that. If SAS as a way to generate functions (like excel does for its trendlines) then could you run that? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:02, 2021 September 2 (CDT) | ||
Line 49: | Line 50: | ||
*** this cross check is not just for CXR, but any CCI. Do those numbers still make sense? Or does the same check for all CCI not make sense? I am OK if we only want to check for CXR. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 14:11, 2021 September 2 (CDT) | *** this cross check is not just for CXR, but any CCI. Do those numbers still make sense? Or does the same check for all CCI not make sense? I am OK if we only want to check for CXR. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 14:11, 2021 September 2 (CDT) | ||
**** yes, i think applicable to the CCI count each (CXR, AXR and Blood gasses). ECMO count days should not exceed LOS. For Transfusion count units, I need to run the stats. This reminds me of another concern - should this be done vis-a-vis to boarding loc. if pt moves to another loc, enter a separate CXR entry starting on the next boarding loc date. Are we over doing these CCIs - too much work, are they needed? In the CC report, I need only a separation of CXR for HSC MICU and HSC SICU. This would not be a problem if we are handling continuous stay of MICU and SICU service in two records and not as one record in patient follow model. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 14:36, 2021 September 2 (CDT) | **** yes, i think applicable to the CCI count each (CXR, AXR and Blood gasses). ECMO count days should not exceed LOS. For Transfusion count units, I need to run the stats. This reminds me of another concern - should this be done vis-a-vis to boarding loc. if pt moves to another loc, enter a separate CXR entry starting on the next boarding loc date. Are we over doing these CCIs - too much work, are they needed? In the CC report, I need only a separation of CXR for HSC MICU and HSC SICU. This would not be a problem if we are handling continuous stay of MICU and SICU service in two records and not as one record in patient follow model. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 14:36, 2021 September 2 (CDT) | ||
***** discussed with Julie: make soft check, no more than LOS*2 for count each; count days should not be > LOS; count units is likely uncheckable. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:47, 2021 September 2 (CDT) }} | ***** discussed with Julie: make soft check, no more than LOS*2 for count each; count days should not be > LOS; count units is likely uncheckable. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:47, 2021 September 2 (CDT) | ||
****** additional decision needed from [[Px Date]] - if we do collect different dttms for each Boarding Loc then the count needs to be per Boarding Loc LOS, not overall LOS. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:52, 2021 September 2 (CDT) }} | |||
== Related articles == | == Related articles == |
Revision as of 15:52, 2021 September 2
Data Integrity Checks | |
Summary: | Confirm that a Category:Labs Imaging count is not unreasonably high |
Related: | CXR (plain film), LOS, Arrive DtTm, Dispo DtTm |
Firmness: | soft check |
Timing: | complete |
App: | CCMDB.accdb |
Coding: | query check_CCI_CXR_vs_LOS |
Uses L Problem table: | not relevant for this app |
Status: | needs review |
Implementation Date: | not entered |
Backlogged: | No |
We have had some medical Category:Labs Imaging count entries that are so high that they are likely errors.
What are likely maximum entries?
The count per patient stay is related to the LOS. The threshold limits are either Mean + 3 Standard Deviation or Maximum value of Chest X-ray count per patient day for various LOS category listed in the table below. They are derived from July 1988 to June 2017 Lab data. The LOS is based on calendar dates where partial stay is considered as full day.
- LOS based on calendar dates = Dispo DtTm - (Accept DtTm/first Service tmp entry) + 1
- if patient is still in the unit, Dispo DtTm is replaced by today's date
- check is marked as only running on complete records, if that is so then we don't need to replace with today's date
- if patient is still in the unit, Dispo DtTm is replaced by today's date
- Chest X-ray (CXR) per patient day = Number of chest X-rays / LOS Based on calendar dates
LOS_days | N | Mean | Std Dev | Minimum | Median | 75th Pctl | 90th Pctl | 95th Pctl | 99th Pctl | Maximum | mean + 3 Std Dev | Limits of CXR per patient day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 4021 | 1.16 | 0.42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2.42 | 5 |
2 | 23910 | 0.83 | 0.31 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 4 | 1.76 | 4 |
3-10 | 52600 | 0.64 | 0.34 | 0.1 | 0.67 | 0.88 | 1 | 1.25 | 1.6 | 3 | 1.66 | 3 |
11-20 | 7784 | 0.7 | 0.31 | 0.05 | 0.71 | 0.92 | 1.09 | 1.19 | 1.42 | 2.47 | 1.63 | 2 |
21-30 | 1870 | 0.68 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 0.69 | 0.9 | 1.05 | 1.14 | 1.36 | 2.57 | 1.58 | 2 |
31-40 | 660 | 0.62 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 0.64 | 0.84 | 1 | 1.09 | 1.32 | 1.67 | 1.52 | 2 |
41-50 | 311 | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.53 | 0.73 | 0.93 | 1.02 | 1.21 | 1.58 | 1.41 | 2 |
51-100 | 347 | 0.41 | 0.26 | 0.02 | 0.38 | 0.6 | 0.76 | 0.85 | 1.12 | 1.2 | 1.19 | 1 |
> 100 | 101 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.2 | 0.48 | 0.73 | 0.88 | 1.09 | 0.82 | 1 |
CCMDB.accdb cross checks triggering for correct values
If the actual correct data leads to a cross-check error CCMDB.accdb will not allow you to send. In that case, enter a value that is acceptable and then email the Data Processor using the "generate email" button.
disucssion
|
|
Related articles
Related articles: |