JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2022: Difference between revisions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:
*Action items in BOLD
*Action items in BOLD


1.  About APACHE 2 Scoring -- i.e. 2019 to 2022 there was an approximate 5 point rise in mean APACHE 2 scores limited to Grace Hospital (pre=Aug2019-Aug 2020 vs. post=Aug 2021-Aug 2022).
1.  Followup about APACHE 2 Scoring
*Julie analyzed the individual APACHE elements from "pre" to "post" and found:
*Possible issue:  When Allan summed the APS elements he got a slightly different mean value from the automatically calculated version.  '''Julie to check on her automated calculation'''
**All APS elements worsened by about 5.4 points total. The neuro subscore being about half of this worsening, with all 3 GCS elements worsening similarly
*'''Tina and Julie will remove one of the (now identical) fields "ApTotal_Chronic" and "chronic_pts"'''.  
**The age points FELL by 0.27 -- indicating a fall from pre to post of a few years in age of the average patient
**Virtually no change in chronic health points
*THUS, from pre to post time periods it seems that the Grace ICU patients got:  a bit younger but sicker.  This could be consistent with more COVID patients being admitted there.  In any case, this change appears real, i.e. not due to any artifact or change in coding of any single (or few) APACHE elements.
*Allan let Barret, Heather and Roseanne know these findings.
*We did seem to identify to possible problems with the automated code used to calculate APACHE subscores and total score, '''which Julie and Tina will check out''':
**When Allan summed the APS elements he got a slightly different mean value from the automatically calculated version
**There are 2 apparently contradictory chronic health fields that need to be understood and adjusted if necessary, they are called "ApTotal_Chronic" and "chronic_pts".  


2. About APACHE 2 Chronic Disorder coding -- '''Allan and Tina to Zoom to interactively resolve this issue'''.  
2. [[Visit_Admit_DtTm differences within same admission]] 
*Tina reports that she has not received any such issues from Pagasa, and it's not clear if (a) there haven't been any vs. (b) there have been some but Pagasa has been dealing with them herself.
*Tina to ask Pagasa about this.  If 'b' then we DO want them sent to Tina so she can send them to Charity to see if they can be fixed withing ADT/Cognos.
** Tina emailed Pagasa [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 11:22, 2022 December 8 (CST)


3. Update about when [[Visit Admit DtTm]] in Cognos is DIFFERENT for records included within a single hospitalization.  
3. [[BedHeldEnd DtTm]] - Per the last JALT meeting, the frequency of people leaving AMA (esp from ward) is not low. And, per Lisa, most of these are without notice.  Thus it is not a trivial issue that there is a nontrivial difference between when the patient actually stops being under care vs. when the bed is released for reassignment. 
*Tina reports that she has not received any such issues from Pagasa, and it's not clear if (a) there haven't been any vs. (b) there have been some but Pagasa has been dealing with them herself.
*We agreed this mandates keeping track of both of these dates/times.  Furthermore, a similar phenomenon occurs when a patient is sent to another hospital for a procedure, expecting to return (so the bed from the sending site is held) but then does not return.
*'''Julie or Tina to ask Pagasa about this'''.  If 'b' then we DO want them sent to Tina so she can send them to Charity to see if they can be fixed withing ADT/Cognos.
*These 2 situations are easy for the DCs to identify and they always do so.
*So we will distinguish between:
**(a) Actual time under care, which is from [[Admit DtTm]]  to the patient's [[Dispo DtTm]] -- we'll call this the patient's length of stay
**(b) What we'll call "Bed Assigned Time", i.e. from [[Admit DtTm]]  to the '''time when the bed is released for reassignment''', which we will call "BedHeldEndTime"This latter is generally available from Cognos (ADT), and '''Tina will create machinery to record BedHeldEndTime as a temp item'''.  As above, this will ONLY be recorded in the situations when a patient leaves AMA but the bed is held for a bit hoping they come back (but they never do so) , or patient goes elsewhere for a procedure expecting them to return so bed is held but they never do come back.
***There will be 2 versions of BedHeldEndTime, i.e. BedHeldEndTime/AMA and BedHeldEndTime/Procedure.


4.  New item: Many ward patients who leave AMA have their beds held for as much as a day or two.  We currently identify their disposition time as when they have physically left, but we recognized that for bed utilization purposes this may not be ideal. To help move our understanding of this issue forward, Julie generated the following data for the 3 current hospitals over a 5 year interval:
4.  Repeat item, regarding how to record time spent waiting for transfer (after [[Transfer Ready DtTm]]):
*AMA rates over the 5 years were:
*We had previously decided to: (a) ignore such transfer delays <2 hrs, but (b) for all delays >=2 hrs to use the actual delay time.
**HSC:    3.8-7.9%
*But this seems to conflict with the prior national Vital Signs Monitoring program (which is now defunct) which substracted 2 hrs from all actual delay intervals.
**STB:    1.6-5.2%
*Allan's rationale for not subtracting 2 hrs is as follows: While there are seemingly obligate delays in transferring a patient out (sending site getting the patient ready to travel and ensuring personnel are available, getting bed cleaned an ready in the accepting site and ensuring personnel are available) the concept of any given interval for these to occur is counter to the concept that we can and should always be striving to make out systems more efficient and reduce those delays.
**Grace:  1.1-4.1%
*So, today '''Allan emailed Carmen, Rosanne and Bojan to get their input on this'''.
*'''At our next JALT meeting we will discuss whether these numbers mandate keeping track separately of timing for: (i) patient leaving the hospital and (ii) when the bed was released for reassignment.'''


5.  Julie reported that the QI team is interested in information on use of the FMS (Fecal Management System), though they have not yet specifically requested information.
5.  New question:  How to deal with transfer delay in a recent case where patient in ICU was made ACP/C and then palliative ---> didn't die and indeed improved --> reversed the ACP/C and patient left ICU alive 7 days later.
*After contacting Dan Roberts, Allan sent an an email on Nov 17 to Carmen Hrymak to ask if indeed the QI Steering Committee does want this information, and if so to obtain details and tell her to go directly through Dan to make the formal request.
*After discussion, we agreed that this is an extremely rare occurrence, and that rather than make a new rule for it, we will stick with the existing rule that transfer delays be calculated from when first transfer ready until the patient leaves. And also, this example is not fundamentally different from when a patient is ready to leave but gets sicker and the transfer is cancelled.
*Likely what they would want is similar to how we collect TISS elements, i.e. for each patient for each day in ICU whether they had, at any time, use of a FMS.


6.  Julie reported that Nephrology asked about obtaining, for CRRT patients, specifically if patients are on any form of systemic anticoagulation. Their interest is related to filter lifespan.  From the email trail, it appears that they'd like to know which drug(s) the patient received.  But the problem is that we only collect "Yes/No" information for any time in ICU, not specific to when the patient was on CRRTFurthermore, we don't split out the different types of heparin.
6. New question: Julie identified that there are cases (esp at St. B ICUs) where ER is the first boarding loc but within a few minutes (or sometimes simultaneous with) that boarding loc, a 2nd boarding loc of ICU is recorded.
*Allan communicated via email with Deborah Stanley (dStanley2@wrha.mb.ca) for clarification, who indicated that their group will discuss this further at their December 2022 meeting and get back to us after that.
*We think this most likely is a phenomenon of incomplete charts and so '''at our next JALT meeting Julie will let us know if this still occurs (and the # of them) in complete charts'''Also, '''Lisa will ask the ICU DCs at St. B about this'''.


7.  Next JALT meeting Nov 30 at 11 am
7.  Next JALT meeting Januar 11, 2023 at 10 am -- this may be our last JALT meeting.


== JALT Meeting – November 16, 2022 ==  
== JALT Meeting – November 16, 2022 ==  
Line 81: Line 79:
2. About APACHE 2 Chronic Disorder coding -- '''Allan and Tina to Zoom to interactively resolve this issue'''.  
2. About APACHE 2 Chronic Disorder coding -- '''Allan and Tina to Zoom to interactively resolve this issue'''.  


3. Update about when [[Visit Admit DtTm]] in Cognos is DIFFERENT for records included within a single hospitalization.
3. [[Visit_Admit_DtTm differences within same admission]]
*Tina reports that she has not received any such issues from Pagasa, and it's not clear if (a) there haven't been any vs. (b) there have been some but Pagasa has been dealing with them herself.
*Tina reports that she has not received any such issues from Pagasa, and it's not clear if (a) there haven't been any vs. (b) there have been some but Pagasa has been dealing with them herself.
*'''Julie or Tina to ask Pagasa about this'''.  If 'b' then we DO want them sent to Tina so she can send them to Charity to see if they can be fixed withing ADT/Cognos.
*'''Julie or Tina to ask Pagasa about this'''.  If 'b' then we DO want them sent to Tina so she can send them to Charity to see if they can be fixed withing ADT/Cognos.
Line 117: Line 115:


4.  Prior/ongoing JALT issues:
4.  Prior/ongoing JALT issues:
*Update/reminder about when [[Visit Admit DtTm]] in Cognos is DIFFERENT for records included within a single hospitalization. Julie to forward next few of these to Tina who will analyze them, and if it seems they're an ADT/Cognos error it may require reporting it to be fixed to Charity.
* [[Visit_Admit_DtTm differences within same admission]] - Julie to forward next few of these to Tina who will analyze them, and if it seems they're an ADT/Cognos error it may require reporting it to be fixed to Chastity.
*Update/reminder about patients (ICU>Medicine) with very short LOS. Julie did an analysis and found that virtually all of these with LOS of 15 mins or less died. Increasingly as these short LOS grow longer (say to 1-2 hrs) the % who die falls. We hypothesize that for those who don't die but have LOS<2 hrs that most are getting sent from Medicine to ICU or being transferred to a different hospital. To check this out Julie will itemize, separately for Med and ICU, the dispositions of patients with LOS of 2 hrs or less who didn't die.
*Update/reminder about patients (ICU>Medicine) with very short LOS. Julie did an analysis and found that virtually all of these with LOS of 15 mins or less died. Increasingly as these short LOS grow longer (say to 1-2 hrs) the % who die falls. We hypothesize that for those who don't die but have LOS<2 hrs that most are getting sent from Medicine to ICU or being transferred to a different hospital. To check this out Julie will itemize, separately for Med and ICU, the dispositions of patients with LOS of 2 hrs or less who didn't die.


[[Category:Task Team]]
[[Category:Task Team]]

Latest revision as of 13:13, 2022 December 8

List of items to bring to JALT meeting

Add to this by adding the following to the article where the problem is documented:

{{DiscussTask | JALT
* <question details>}}

(this will bring it to Task if not addressed at JALT)

or

{{Discuss | JALT
* <question details>}}

(this will not bring it to Task) Toggle columns: Last modified

wiki page question Last modified
wiki page question Last modified
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)
2024-03-12 6:38:18 PM
Query cardiac arrest throughout admission JALT Review after 2023-09-15
  • Lisa flagged that, if we do this for Cardiac Arrest, we should really do it for other dxs as well. And if we did that, it could result in a lot of work since it would need to be mediated by Pagasa for now. So we decided to see where the SF implementation goes and review the definition of this check once we have a centralized tool where the data collector would not need to mediate this. Ttenbergen 15:43, 2023 July 13 (CDT)
  • 2023-07-25 3:49:53 PM

    _

    _

    JALT Meeting – November 30, 2022

    • Present: Julie, Allan, Lisa, Tina
    • Emails: LKaita@hsc.mb.ca; allan.garland@umanitoba.ca; JMojica@hsc.mb.ca;TTENBERGEN@hsc.mb.ca
    • Minutes prepared by: AG
    • Action items in BOLD

    1. Followup about APACHE 2 Scoring

    • Possible issue: When Allan summed the APS elements he got a slightly different mean value from the automatically calculated version. Julie to check on her automated calculation
    • Tina and Julie will remove one of the (now identical) fields "ApTotal_Chronic" and "chronic_pts".

    2. Visit_Admit_DtTm differences within same admission

    • Tina reports that she has not received any such issues from Pagasa, and it's not clear if (a) there haven't been any vs. (b) there have been some but Pagasa has been dealing with them herself.
    • Tina to ask Pagasa about this. If 'b' then we DO want them sent to Tina so she can send them to Charity to see if they can be fixed withing ADT/Cognos.
      • Tina emailed Pagasa Ttenbergen 11:22, 2022 December 8 (CST)

    3. BedHeldEnd DtTm - Per the last JALT meeting, the frequency of people leaving AMA (esp from ward) is not low. And, per Lisa, most of these are without notice. Thus it is not a trivial issue that there is a nontrivial difference between when the patient actually stops being under care vs. when the bed is released for reassignment.

    • We agreed this mandates keeping track of both of these dates/times. Furthermore, a similar phenomenon occurs when a patient is sent to another hospital for a procedure, expecting to return (so the bed from the sending site is held) but then does not return.
    • These 2 situations are easy for the DCs to identify and they always do so.
    • So we will distinguish between:
      • (a) Actual time under care, which is from Admit DtTm to the patient's Dispo DtTm -- we'll call this the patient's length of stay
      • (b) What we'll call "Bed Assigned Time", i.e. from Admit DtTm to the time when the bed is released for reassignment, which we will call "BedHeldEndTime". This latter is generally available from Cognos (ADT), and Tina will create machinery to record BedHeldEndTime as a temp item. As above, this will ONLY be recorded in the situations when a patient leaves AMA but the bed is held for a bit hoping they come back (but they never do so) , or patient goes elsewhere for a procedure expecting them to return so bed is held but they never do come back.
        • There will be 2 versions of BedHeldEndTime, i.e. BedHeldEndTime/AMA and BedHeldEndTime/Procedure.

    4. Repeat item, regarding how to record time spent waiting for transfer (after Transfer Ready DtTm):

    • We had previously decided to: (a) ignore such transfer delays <2 hrs, but (b) for all delays >=2 hrs to use the actual delay time.
    • But this seems to conflict with the prior national Vital Signs Monitoring program (which is now defunct) which substracted 2 hrs from all actual delay intervals.
    • Allan's rationale for not subtracting 2 hrs is as follows: While there are seemingly obligate delays in transferring a patient out (sending site getting the patient ready to travel and ensuring personnel are available, getting bed cleaned an ready in the accepting site and ensuring personnel are available) the concept of any given interval for these to occur is counter to the concept that we can and should always be striving to make out systems more efficient and reduce those delays.
    • So, today Allan emailed Carmen, Rosanne and Bojan to get their input on this.

    5. New question: How to deal with transfer delay in a recent case where patient in ICU was made ACP/C and then palliative ---> didn't die and indeed improved --> reversed the ACP/C and patient left ICU alive 7 days later.

    • After discussion, we agreed that this is an extremely rare occurrence, and that rather than make a new rule for it, we will stick with the existing rule that transfer delays be calculated from when first transfer ready until the patient leaves. And also, this example is not fundamentally different from when a patient is ready to leave but gets sicker and the transfer is cancelled.

    6. New question: Julie identified that there are cases (esp at St. B ICUs) where ER is the first boarding loc but within a few minutes (or sometimes simultaneous with) that boarding loc, a 2nd boarding loc of ICU is recorded.

    • We think this most likely is a phenomenon of incomplete charts and so at our next JALT meeting Julie will let us know if this still occurs (and the # of them) in complete charts. Also, Lisa will ask the ICU DCs at St. B about this.

    7. Next JALT meeting Januar 11, 2023 at 10 am -- this may be our last JALT meeting.

    JALT Meeting – November 16, 2022

    • Present: Julie, Allan, Lisa, Tina
    • Emails: LKaita@hsc.mb.ca; allan.garland@umanitoba.ca; JMojica@hsc.mb.ca;TTENBERGEN@hsc.mb.ca
    • Minutes prepared by: AG
    • Action items in BOLD

    1. About APACHE 2 Scoring -- i.e. 2019 to 2022 there was an approximate 5 point rise in mean APACHE 2 scores limited to Grace Hospital (pre=Aug2019-Aug 2020 vs. post=Aug 2021-Aug 2022).

    • Julie analyzed the individual APACHE elements from "pre" to "post" and found:
      • All APS elements worsened by about 5.4 points total. The neuro subscore being about half of this worsening, with all 3 GCS elements worsening similarly
      • The age points FELL by 0.27 -- indicating a fall from pre to post of a few years in age of the average patient
      • Virtually no change in chronic health points
    • THUS, from pre to post time periods it seems that the Grace ICU patients got: a bit younger but sicker. This could be consistent with more COVID patients being admitted there. In any case, this change appears real, i.e. not due to any artifact or change in coding of any single (or few) APACHE elements.
    • Allan let Barret, Heather and Roseanne know these findings.
    • We did seem to identify to possible problems with the automated code used to calculate APACHE subscores and total score, which Julie and Tina will check out:
      • When Allan summed the APS elements he got a slightly different mean value from the automatically calculated version
      • There are 2 apparently contradictory chronic health fields that need to be understood and adjusted if necessary, they are called "ApTotal_Chronic" and "chronic_pts".

    2. About APACHE 2 Chronic Disorder coding -- Allan and Tina to Zoom to interactively resolve this issue.

    3. Visit_Admit_DtTm differences within same admission -

    • Tina reports that she has not received any such issues from Pagasa, and it's not clear if (a) there haven't been any vs. (b) there have been some but Pagasa has been dealing with them herself.
    • Julie or Tina to ask Pagasa about this. If 'b' then we DO want them sent to Tina so she can send them to Charity to see if they can be fixed withing ADT/Cognos.

    4. New item: Many ward patients who leave AMA have their beds held for as much as a day or two. We currently identify their disposition time as when they have physically left, but we recognized that for bed utilization purposes this may not be ideal. To help move our understanding of this issue forward, Julie generated the following data for the 3 current hospitals over a 5 year interval:

    • AMA rates over the 5 years were:
      • HSC: 3.8-7.9%
      • STB: 1.6-5.2%
      • Grace: 1.1-4.1%
    • At our next JALT meeting we will discuss whether these numbers mandate keeping track separately of timing for: (i) patient leaving the hospital and (ii) when the bed was released for reassignment.

    5. Julie reported that the QI team is interested in information on use of the FMS (Fecal Management System), though they have not yet specifically requested information.

    • After contacting Dan Roberts, Allan sent an an email on Nov 17 to Carmen Hrymak to ask if indeed the QI Steering Committee does want this information, and if so to obtain details and tell her to go directly through Dan to make the formal request.
    • Likely what they would want is similar to how we collect TISS elements, i.e. for each patient for each day in ICU whether they had, at any time, use of a FMS.

    6. Julie reported that Nephrology asked about obtaining, for CRRT patients, specifically if patients are on any form of systemic anticoagulation. Their interest is related to filter lifespan. From the email trail, it appears that they'd like to know which drug(s) the patient received. But the problem is that we only collect "Yes/No" information for any time in ICU, not specific to when the patient was on CRRT. Furthermore, we don't split out the different types of heparin.

    • Allan communicated via email with Deborah Stanley (dStanley2@wrha.mb.ca) for clarification, who indicated that their group will discuss this further at their December 2022 meeting and get back to us after that.

    7. Next JALT meeting Nov 30 at 11 am -- Allan sent a Zoom invite.

    JALT Meeting – November 10, 2022

    • Present: Julie, Allan, Lisa, Tina
    • Minutes prepared by: AG
    • Action items in BOLD

    1. About APACHE 2 Scoring

    • It was noted that over 2019-2021 there was an approximate 5 point rise in mean APACHE 2 scores limited to Grace Hospital.
    • To try and understand whether this change was real, or due to some problems with APACHE scoring, Julie will analyze the components of the APACHE score in the "pre" vs. "post" period in question.

    2. About APACHE 2 Chronic Disorder coding

    • Per Tina's 11/3/22 email to Allan, there is still a problem with how Allan specified the ICD10 codes to be included. Tina and Allan will meet to resolve these.

    3. About reporting of transfer-ready bed-days on Medicine. The issue here is that while we currently report these as of when the patient is discharged from the bed, for long-stay patients, this may "allot" those bed-days to months, quarters and occasionally even years different from when they actually occurred.

    • After discussion, given that the database records of long-stay patients remain "incomplete" until discharge, and the fact that a choice does need to be made in this regard, and the fact that the usual paradigm for this kind of issue is to assign things to when the patient is discharged ---> we agreed to keep with the current reporting paradigm

    4. Prior/ongoing JALT issues:

    • Visit_Admit_DtTm differences within same admission - Julie to forward next few of these to Tina who will analyze them, and if it seems they're an ADT/Cognos error it may require reporting it to be fixed to Chastity.
    • Update/reminder about patients (ICU>Medicine) with very short LOS. Julie did an analysis and found that virtually all of these with LOS of 15 mins or less died. Increasingly as these short LOS grow longer (say to 1-2 hrs) the % who die falls. We hypothesize that for those who don't die but have LOS<2 hrs that most are getting sent from Medicine to ICU or being transferred to a different hospital. To check this out Julie will itemize, separately for Med and ICU, the dispositions of patients with LOS of 2 hrs or less who didn't die.