Query check CCI InExtubation consistent: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:07, 2020 May 5

Data Integrity Checks
Summary:	Any marked TISS Item T40 - Insertion of ETT (TISS Item) or in T22 - ETT Present (TISS Item) must have at least one marked TISS item either in T28 - Planned extubation (TISS Item) or in T29 - Unplanned extubation (TISS Item)
Related:	Insertion of ETT (TISS Item), Planned extubation (TISS Item), Unplanned extubation (TISS Item)
Firmness:	hard check
Timing:	always
App:	Centralized data front end.accdb
Coding:
Uses L Problem table:	not entered
Status:	ready to implement
Implementation Date:	2018-10-25
Backlogged:	true

A = Total the number of days T40 - Insertion of ETT (TISS Item) are marked per patient
B = Total the number of days T28 - Planned extubation (TISS Item) and T29 - Unplanned extubation (TISS Item) are marked per patient
The difference between A and B can be -1, 0, 1. Other values will be questionable.

	{{{1}}}	added: no added date action: no action date

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * The difference between A and B can be -1, 0, 1.  Other values will be questionable.
-{{Discuss | who = Tina | question =_Dev_CFE
+{{TT | question =_Dev_CFE
 * this cross check would not know the difference between (on one day, intubated, extubated, and reintubated) vs (intubated and then extubated); while this hopefully not too common of a thing, would it cause false positives for Pagasa to run after? Ttenbergen 11:33, 2018 October 29 (CDT)
 **yes that is correct because both have a difference of zero. Using the cut off GTE Abs(2) will get true negatives and not false positives.  This query considers only the counts and not the dates which will have numerous scenarios and too complicated to define. For those having a difference of -1,0,1 , there are also the possibility for incorrect sequence of dates of intubation or extubation  - this is not captured in the query.  If you have other suggestions, let us know.--[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 12:19, 2018 October 29 (CDT)