JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2023

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 – January 11, 2023

    • Present: J,A,L,T
    • 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. We now believe it is correct.

    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. Regarding the new infrastructure to separately record both Dispo DtTm field (for when the patient is no longer under our care) and BedHeldEnd DtTm (for when the assigned bed is released).

    • This only applies to situations when patient vacates the bed but it is "held" for expected or possible return of the patient.
      • The main such situations are the patient does NOT return after: (a) going elsewhere for a procedure, or (b) leaving AMA and the bed is held for a day or 2 hoping she/he will return. Which of these occurred is recorded in TEMP.
    • Today we recognized another such situation: Patient living at St.Amont had a PEG, went back to St. Amont hoping he'd do well, but the hospital bed was held for a day just in case. As this situation isn't covered by recording AMA or Procedure in TEMP, we agreed to add another possible TEMP entry for such occurrence, to be named something like "Other" or "Weird Reason". Tina/Julie will implement this.
    • Julie also inquired about how to now report about bed-days and occupancy. After discussion, we agreed that she will alter reporting as follows:
      • Primarily report on days patients were in beds being cared for in those beds (i.e. from Admit DtTm until Dispo DtTm.
      • But also report the ADDITIONAL cumulative days when beds were held with the expectation patients would return to them, but did not, as directly above.

    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. 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 January 12, 2023.

    Retrieved from "https://ccmdb.kuality.ca/index.php?title=JALT_Meeting_-_Rolling_Agenda_and_Minutes_2023&oldid=158267"