Portal related pages with questions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Data User Portal for the Manitoba Critical Care and Medicine Databases has a audience outside of our organization, so we should attempt to keep on top of Category:Questions on pages that are linked from there. There is no easy way to do this for pages that are linked from there, specifically, but most pages linked from there are in one of the following categories: Category:Data structure, Category:Project or Category:Indicators. Here is a list of pages that are in one of those categories and that have questions:

 WhoDiscussQuestionModDtTm"Modification date" is a predefined property that corresponds to the date of the last modification of a subject and is provided by Semantic MediaWiki.
ACP Status CollectionallTask
  • I had understood that DR wanted to know if the doctors on the current service are processing this. That might be a misunderstanding, though. DR if a patient is admitted to our service from another service or ward (icu to medicine, ER to medicine/ICU, surgical ward to ICU/medicine) and has an ACP already established by the previous service, can we use this as the first documented ACP? or do you want to know when the new service establishes an ACP status?
    • Ah... I don't think I got clarification on that one. I have added it to my list for my next meeting with Dr. Roberts (Thu Jul 3). Also added to Task in case that happens sooner. Ttenbergen 22:57, 29 June 2025 (CDT)
22 August 2025 02:42:18
Boarding LocJulie
all		what is this sentence telling me, can I not use the specific medicine entry? Why/how? What would a new collector need to know?
  • I have no idea, I suppose this can happen although I have not ever seen this at any of the facilities, I believe you were the original author of this so feel free to do what you want with this Lisa Kaita 13:46, 6 August 2025 (CDT)
    • Julie, do you know what this is about? If the same applies for Med as for ICU in this, then lets get rid of the confusing entry. Ttenbergen 17:23, 6 August 2025 (CDT)
      • we have one case S4_STB_Med-2892 where first3 days at SBGH ICMS then transferred to SBGH-L2CC.--JMojica 16:42, 18 August 2025 (CDT)
        • What else would they use? The entry would come from Cognos, no? It's entered by drop-down, so I don't think they could enter anything but the actual entry. Is this stated here really as a reminder for you, in case this happens again? If so, would it be better to store it in L_Problems table? If it is an instruction to collectors, would you explain further what you actually intend? Ttenbergen 17:33, 19 August 2025 (CDT)
        • leave what is in Cognos, the main office doesn't use this part for anything for home locations, but it can be used to crosscheck accuracy.
          • what is this about? Ttenbergen 17:42, 19 August 2025 (CDT)


    • It says:

    • Change one to be off by one minute, put a note in Notes field to check boarding location to confirm the correct date and time for the boarding locations of concern.
      • how does that fit in with reviewing reality in the chart?
      • I don't know what you mean by this? It means you double check the correct first service and first and second boarding loc dttm Lisa Kaita 21:14, 6 September 2025 (CDT)
        • Well, it seems like this triggers an error check, so you pull the times a minute apart to overcome the error check and put a note to remind you to check later. So either the check should run later (on complete or send) or we shouldn't have it at all. But a check that just gets you to "tweak" the data to make it go away isn't a good idea.
    • sure if you can have the cross check on completion that would be better, the prior scenario is almost always for SICU admissions from ER Lisa Kaita 15:51, 26 November 2025 (CST)
      • Julie, do you use Boarding Loc info on incomplete charts? Would either the current collection practice, or delaying the check, mess with measures or indicators? Ttenbergen 22:09, 26 November 2025 (CST)
    		27 November 2025 04:09:31
    Chronic Health FacilityTina
    Task
  • review, that might need to be consolidated with this page as well.



    • We have discussed lately that we might want to become more nuanced about some chronic care locations (Deer Lodge (DLC) and Riverview). I have removed the details from the above linked fields and consolidated here. Once this page is cleaned up this discussion entry can be removed.


    • This issue raised a problem with medicine data recently, and we will review again if this needs to be coded more granular after all,
    • dicussed at JALT June 25, 2025: while Bojan would like this it is not possible to keep track of unit changes and not always easy to tell which unit they arrive from so leave a Riverview and Deer Lodge (DLC), with the exception of the PCH units in each facility.Lisa Kaita 14:52, 25 June 2025 (CDT)


    		28 November 2025 13:43:16
    ClientGUID fieldall
    • Lisa, any idea why this might be happening from a collection perspective? Is the problem in what we receive the right info from Cognos, or is there an issue in the collection process that makes this happen? Ttenbergen 09:52, 2024 December 5 (CST)
    • Julie, do we need to flag anywhere further that this data is suspect? Ttenbergen 09:52, 2024 December 5 (CST)
    		31 October 2025 20:55:14
    Data definition for factor candidates for the Overstay2 projectTinaIntegrate these better 5 December 2025 22:27:38
    Decubitus Ulcer StudyJulie
  • This data is not in the tmp table (at least not under a project "Decubitus Ulcer". Where does it live?
    		• 23 October 2025 20:21:24
    Dispo fieldLisa
    all
    Task    		If this is actually done then why don't we just make the nursing stations available? We already have s_dispo table entries for them. 35 entries since 2016, 6 in the last 12 months. Are there other things for which this entry is used? Checked for reasons for this decision but they don't appear documented Ttenbergen 19:42, 13 March 2025 (CDT)
    JALT

    I thought we had decided at JALT to collect this as presented by EPR... do I remember this wrong? I had already added it in CCMDB.accdb Change Log 2025#2025-03-11-1. Ttenbergen 22:52, 11 March 2025 (CDT)

    • Yes, I saw that, come to think of it I don't think we decided, not in my notes, but we can use it and I will change the wiki instructions Lisa Kaita 11:25, 13 March 2025 (CDT)
    • If we are going to collect this detail for dispo, should we consider whether or not to also look at SH in preadmit living situation?, currently lumped with community facility with support. Lisa Kaita 14:45, 16 April 2025 (CDT)
    • The entry name includes "TRSF" - is the entry for the previous location equivalent in EPR? Ttenbergen 23:30, 16 April 2025 (CDT)
    • no because the previous location would usually be <site>_ER Lisa Kaita 09:53, 28 May 2025 (CDT)
      • Sorry, I should have asked about "pre-hospital location in ADT". Ttenbergen 16:21, 28 May 2025 (CDT)
        That more detailed info included things like HSC Lennox Bell; we discussed whether or not we need to document the details of this. If so, the following is likely a starting point:
    • Home
    • Home with support
    • Institution NOS
    • TRSF Group/Supportive housing
    • TRSF to Correctional Facility
    • any Hospices
    • GH-Transitional care
    • HSC - Transitional care
    • Misericordia - Transitional care
    • STB - Transitional care
    • VIC - Transitional care
    • HSC Lennox Bell
    • Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Center - unknown/other
      • what is this about again? we already collect these with the exception of the transitional care units, which don't exist, at GH, HSC, SBGH and VIC, but there is a TCU at Miseri and DLC Lisa Kaita 21:18, 6 September 2025 (CDT)
        • we discussed whether we should shift to EPR's "TRSF to Residential Care" and decided not to because our data is more granular. But we should be able to compare to their TRSF, so should understand which of our data would compare to theirs, and how. I think the above is a list of what we have in dispo, so which of those correspond do what listing in EPR? Ttenbergen 10:31, 8 September 2025 (CDT)
    • does this include patients who are discharged home with private nursing service? (steph)
      • With "this" do you mean "TRSF Group/Supportive housing"? I would not have thought so. If you mean "Home with Support Services", good question. How would HIS use it (aside from getting it wrong at times)? We should probably stick with their definition for consistency. Convince me otherwise. Julie also might have thoughts on how we would use this entry, will flag for her. Ttenbergen 01:02, 24 October 2025 (CDT)
    • I think this would be belong under home with support services, but do the virtual wards fall under transfer to Group/Supportive housing? Lisa Kaita 14:03, 14 November 2025 (CST)
    		14 November 2025 20:03:52
    ER Delayall
    Julie
    • I have re-updated Created_Variables_Common_maker_2021 query, for some reason the change I had made was not reflected in the master version. Ready to test. Ttenbergen 13:25, 2022 June 28 (CDT)
      • emailed Tina some inconsistencies found in ER Delays Aug 15,2022. --JMojica 13:21, 2022 August 29 (CDT)
        • are these still an issue? Ttenbergen 11:15, 2024 May 1 (CDT)
          • I will re-check again. Can't remember if have been resolved. --JMojica 14:40, 2024 October 2 (CDT)


    • I just had a look at that sas file (they open as text files) to see how you define transfer delay. If that file is still being used we may have a problem, it still defines tdelay different if a pt goes to a higher level of care, goes AMA or dies, and we changed that some time ago. So is this still the reference of how you calculate this? Ttenbergen 22:50, 2024 November 16 (CST)


    • This data is problematic before 2011-Q2,the only reason there are any is because it derives them for EMIPs. Some data may be available in Moves for Medicine, but that would still leave a gap. Ttenbergen 23:09, 2024 November 16 (CST)
      • OK, will be working on this getting data from Moves for Medicine from period Sept 2007 to June 3, 2011. will give to Pagasa for upload to Arrive DtTm field. I will update the WIKI as soon as done. Conclusion: for Medicine, prior Sept 2007, no ER delay while for Critical Care, no ER Delay prior July 1, 2016 -- these are treated as missing. --JMojica 16:35, 2024 December 11 (CST)


    • This measure is not referenced by any of the Reports pages. Which reports actually use this? Is it wrapped into a specifically stratified indicator like beds lost or similar? Ttenbergen 15:14, 7 December 2025 (CST)
    		7 December 2025 21:14:16
    EuroSCORE IIall
    • Do we need to add "Dr. Michael Troncone" to this? Or is it better to not maintain that list here and instead ask collectors to refer to the dropdown?
    		19 August 2025 21:54:43
    ICUotherServiceJulie
    • what does this mean split HSC CC records by service rather than by program only? no more documentation of borrowed bed and service say, SICU overflow in MICU or MICU overflow in SICU? --JMojica 11:20, 15 September 2025 (CDT)
    		27 November 2025 16:14:17
    Intended1stSrvcall
    Julie    		is that the right report? I have added this new data to that report's dependencies. If it's the wrong one it will need to be taken out of there. If other reports also use this, it will need to be added to them. If only that report you can remove this comment. Ttenbergen 15:20, 26 September 2025 (CDT)
    Things we need to resolve:
    • We need to review anything that links to ICUotherService, and anything that page lists to. The "anything that links there" can be accessed by expanding the "related articles (expand)" at the bottom of ICUotherService. Ttenbergen 10:59, 25 September 2025 (CDT)


    JALT

    • How do we want to do this, we could use the currently active entries for CC in s_dispo table:
    • HSC_IICU
    • HSC_MICU
    • HSC_SICU
    • STB_ACCU
    • STB_CICU
    • STB_MICU

    or the full possible names under the CC services in S Cognos Services table that we actually use (in the last 2 months we had): Item

    • GH Critical Care / ACSS
    • GH Critical Care / General
    • GH Critical Care / General ICU
    • HSC Critical Care - MICU
    • HSC Critical Care / A Medicine
    • HSC Critical Care / A Non Teaching Med
    • HSC Critical Care / D Medicine
    • HSC Critical Care / D Non Teaching Med
    • HSC Critical Care / General
    • HSC Critical Care / H Medicine
    • HSC Critical Care / H Non Teaching Med
    • HSC Critical Care / Intermediate
    • HSC Critical Care / Medicine
    • HSC Critical Care / Neurosurgery
    • HSC Critical Care / Obstetrics
    • HSC Critical Care / Orthopedics
    • HSC Critical Care / Otolaryngology
    • HSC Critical Care / Plastics
    • HSC Critical Care / Respiratory
    • HSC Critical Care / Trauma
    • HSC Critical Care / Vascular
    • HSC Surgery / Neurosurgery
    • SBGH Cardiac / Cardiac Surgery
    • SBGH Cardiac / Crit Care Cardiology
    • SBGH Critical Care / Acute Care Surgery
    • SBGH Critical Care / B Service
    • SBGH Critical Care / C Service
    • SBGH Critical Care / Cardiac Surgery
    • SBGH Critical Care / Crit Care Cardiology
    • SBGH Critical Care / General
    • SBGH Critical Care / Medicine

    or we could use only the part before the "/" for the CC services in S Cognos Services table:

    • GH Critical Care
    • HSC Critical Care / Intermediate (this wouldn't be captured without the post-/ part)
    • HSC Critical Care
    • (but what would actually signify SICU, or would we again still need Service/Location for that?
    • SBGH Cardiac
    • SBGH Critical Care
    • SBGH Cardiac / Cardiac Surgery (this wouldn't be captured without the post-/ part)
    • SBGH Cardiac / Crit Care Cardiology (this wouldn't be captured without the post-/ part)
      This project is not live yet, do not follow the instructions to stop the old collection yet. I hope to have this set up to start collecting with the new instructions Dec1. For now, continue to use the instructions in ICUotherService. Ttenbergen 14:27, 26 September 2025 (CDT)
    		27 November 2025 21:55:36
    L TmpV2 multi-entry clean-upJulieDid we ever resolve this? What was the outcome? If we didn't resolve it, do we still need to? If not, can we delete this page?15 March 2025 03:15:57
    LAU Public TrusteeTinaI also used this field for FORM 21 but documented it in the Q column, should we take this out? I think there were a handful of these Lisa Kaita 07:27, 11 April 2025 (CDT)3 May 2025 05:39:57
    LAU collection readmission dataLisa
  • what if they spend time in an ED in between as part of re-admission, possibly pushing past the 7 day range? Due to the very long ER delays for LAU I think we would want to include those. Ttenbergen 00:06, 12 March 2025 (CDT
    • These would be included because I am using the ADT/EPR readmits and the admit time reflects first time of presentation and an ensuing admission Lisa Kaita 12:13, 10 April 2025 (CDT))
      • to be perfectly clear: if someone is discharged from LAU on Jan 1, and then presents to an ED at GRA, where they decide the person should go to LAU, but the patient is not transferred and made an inpatient again at an LAU for another 3 days (pushing their new admission past the 10 day window), would you tag them as a re-admission? Ttenbergen 12:42, 10 April 2025 (CDT)
  • Yes, I believe it would because in EPR for patient visits, the patient you describe would show them as an inpatient, beginning Jan 7, even though by our definition they are not an inpt til the LAU folks accept them. I would not be able to decipher the actual first service time without having the chart or running an EPR report. Lisa Kaita 12:49, 10 April 2025 (CDT)
    		• 30 July 2025 16:34:49
    Overstay2 Overviewall
    • When I talked with Andrea Thiessen she said there was no SOP for the clerk yet, and that the form is not yet part of the admission package because they are finalizing some forms approval for it. Until we hear it's set up it might be good to flag when you run low on forms or forms are not in the admission package.
    		24 July 2025 21:18:10
    Overstay2 Screening ReportsTina
    • According to the draft SOPs we are to provide communication of the results as below. Andrea Thiessen explained that they would want something like a list split by colour. Then people would start manually populating other documents with this. I should follow up to determine the details and possibly set up a better way.
    • 2025-07-03 TT emailed to Katherine Graham and Kathy Kwiatkowski how they will use it (include Andrea Thiessen)


    • The 110.500.411, Discharge Planning Screening Tool (DPST) says that we will provide a report or patient colours. The details need to still be worked out.
        • I need to work with Andrea and Katherine Graham on overall reporting, so please don't do a separate approach on this. Separate emails are awkward for them, I asked to do it like that for now because it's low effort on collector part and you said you are already overwhelmed by all the changes. Ttenbergen 12:12, 3 July 2025 (CDT)
    • If this remains in email form there may end up being a mailing list for this.

    Once the final reports are figured out collectors may or may not be involved in providing these. Ttenbergen 00:11, 2 July 2025 (CDT)

      • As of July25,2025 collectors were advised they can stop sending the automatically generated emails to Andrea, so we have, TT removed this function Sept 5, 2025 Lisa Kaita 07:28, 6 September 2025 (CDT)
    		6 September 2025 12:28:06
    Overstay2 data processing and reporting in CFEall
    Tina
    • Nothing yet, fill in as it becomes available.


    • add functions/subs when I finalize this
    		23 February 2025 22:13:18
    Postal_Code_Master tableJulie
    • Do we want a regular update process? See comments in that file. Ttenbergen 12:15, 4 August 2025 (CDT)
    		4 August 2025 17:33:09
    Postal Code fieldall
    Tina    		do we have a page for that to also include instructions about province etc. like we have for homeless...
    I understand the sentiment in the following, but this should either be rules or not mentioned at all, or it will cause confusion, since it would be relevant specifically in the edge cases when it would fall apart. So it might be better to address the specific edge cases and make a rule and cross check where relevant.

    Where this bears on data use, we should make sure we define once what we will check for and how we adjudicate or interpret inconsistencies, like we did for homeless patients. Ttenbergen 16:10, 11 July 2025 (CDT)


    Relationship between Province, PHIN and Postal code

    When collecting Postal Code, PHIN number and Province, think about the relationship of this information when you are collecting it.

    • if patient has a MB PHIN number, then Province code should be MB and the postal code should be for MB (MB postal codes start with an "R").
    • if Province code is not MB then the postal code should not be a MB postal code. Enter "not applicable" or the out of province postal code if available, and also, there should not be a PHIN number.
    • CCMDB have pre_acute_living_situation field homeless with Postal Code, should the Postal code be ignored and replaced by N/A. Should the R_Province entry be affected by Postal Code N/A? --JMojica 10:54, 24 June 2025 (CDT)
      • We are currently reviewing some of the definitions of homelessness. It is possible that details will change as outcome from that. The concept has been broadened to include some ambiguous states and terminology changed to houselessness. Next meeting later this week about that.
      • I don't expect that it would change instructions of how to code Postal Code; so, it makes sense to me to update vetted data for postal code to "N/A" if the Pre acute living situation is "homeless".
      • Also, we have discussed whether it would be better to do this as an actual change in data, or as an logical change by function or encoded data in the Data Meaning Layer. Julie, you already do some other things in that layer to re-write data, if I interpret your SAS code correctly. Ttenbergen 17:11, 18 July 2025 (CDT)



    • this is related to Minimal Data Set and when it's used... do we document this as a concept?
    		11 August 2025 14:48:50
    Previous_Location fieldLisa
    all    		what is the Pre-admit Inpatient Institution entry for this case? --JMojica 13:37, 29 July 2025 (CDT)
    • That is what we need to decide we should probably keep it consistent with EMIP concept, however, for SICU we generally disregard the surgical service (when in ER) unless they were truly an inpt on a ward Lisa Kaita 13:59, 30 July 2025 (CDT)
    • for consistency, should this also use the Template:PrePrevDispo listing? Actually, what does this even mean for previous location? And what do you do if the patient comes from med?
    		31 July 2025 03:56:57
    Project AHCTina
    Lisa    		can you please activate this cross check? thank you 14:13, 21 November 2025 (CST)
    The following was written within the data entry instructions: "** for consults that are initiated prior to the first Service tmp entry use the dttm of the first Service tmp entry". But down here it seems to say to only enter that there was a consult if the the med team writes a new order, in which case there would be a new dttm that is within range. So these seem contradictory to me. Am I missing something? Ttenbergen 16:46, 21 November 2025 (CST)
    • is this really a "don't enter that"? If so it should go under #Exclusion. Ttenbergen 16:46, 21 November 2025 (CST)
    • or is it an "aware of patient transfer from other source" for "consult received" - in which case it should be a sub-bullet under that entry
    		22 November 2025 05:33:52
    Project MRallDRQ
    • How do we want to define where to get this? Unless we get physicians to put this information into a specific spot we are right back to all the definition difficulties in Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry, only it will be worse because collectors will need to keep conflicting but similar instructions in mind. Ttenbergen 08:49, 26 February 2025 (CST)
      • emailed DR about this Ttenbergen 11:36, 28 February 2025 (CST)
        DRQ
    • Do we want that to be the first time during a medicine program admission, or only the first time during a hospitalization? Ttenbergen 08:45, 26 February 2025 (CST)
    • Also, we define Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry to be able to do this per level of care to enable reporting separately for HOBS. I think there are problems with that concept since I doubt users of the data keep the detailed definition in mind, but we still need to decide if we want to be able to report this the same way. If so, we need the the same connector integer in the instructions. Ttenbergen 08:51, 26 February 2025 (CST)
      • added to agenda to discuss with DR 2025-08-28 Ttenbergen 17:04, 21 August 2025 (CDT)
    		21 August 2025 22:04:55
    Project Overstay2JulieJALT
  • We have had patients admitted from the chronic care unit at DLC (they live there) the nurses check off PCH for where they reside (on DPST), for Pre acute living situation field we enter Chronic Health Facility and for dispo we enter Deer Lodge, should we be considering this a PCH? as per instructions on DPST they do not continue the DPST form Lisa Kaita 12:35, 24 November 2025 (CST)
    		• 27 November 2025 04:25:29
    Query Check_VADT_too_close_to_first_boarding_locJulie
    Lisa    		We discussed this in our after-Task meeting 2023-07-23 and I just stumbled across it. I do not remember what this was about, nor what a reasonable delay would be. Could one of you fill in the details for the query if we still want it? No hurry. In fact I'd prefer if you not hurried ;-). Ttenbergen 21:38, 13 August 2025 (CDT)
  • this came about when the Pre-admit Inpatient Institution location is own site and previous location is own ER and the VADT is too close to first boarding loc dttm. If I remember correctly you mentioned 6 hours (0.25d) gap as maybe entry error on the preadmit inpt. Is 12 hours (0.50d) reasonable? --JMojica 09:23, 14 August 2025 (CDT)

    • We discussed this in our after-Task meeting 2023-07-23 and I just stumbled across it. I do not remember what this was about, nor what a reasonable delay would be. Could one of you fill in the details for the query if we still want it? No hurry. In fact I'd prefer if you not hurried ;-). Ttenbergen 21:38, 13 August 2025 (CDT)

    • SMW


    • Cargo


    • Categories
    		19 August 2025 22:10:00
    Query check_tmp_AHCLisa
    • if there is referral sent there must be a referral received entry and a consult dealt with entryLisa Kaita 11:31, 7 August 2025 (CDT)
      • pt could die in between? consult could go missing? In a way those would be really the ones we would want to know about, no? I suppose we could make it a soft check... Ttenbergen 16:26, 19 August 2025 (CDT)
      • this almost sounds like the opposite of how I would have understood the current instructions. I would have thought those to mean to only enter "consult received" if there was no good data for consult sent. How do we actually want to use this?


      • item must not be "not entered"
    • I implemented this one and 40 records in my test data have a "not entered" in complete data. Did I misunderstand the instructions?
    		22 November 2025 07:08:26
    Query check_tmp_Overstay2Julieothers?7 August 2025 16:32:42
    Query s tmp check combined Boarding Loc and TransferReadyDtTmTina
    • This doesn't catch duplicate Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry for Boarding Loc on incompletes. That is probably fine since we don't use the incompletes, but it could be added the next time the check is worked on anyway.
    		27 June 2025 14:08:32
    Re-analysis and generation of Overstay2 modelall
    Tina
    Julie    		still needs to be set up by Tina...
    Still needs:
    • considerations
    • values we considered and rejected
    • minimize duplication of Data definition for factor candidates for the Overstay2 project, things that users of the data need to know going forward need to live there, decisions taken that don't affect ongoing process should be documented here.
    • When I looked at your code that breaks out Location / living arrangement into groupings and measures it seemed to me that it was mixing up data cleaning and validation with measure definition and it might be good to keep those separate. Cleaning and validation should apply to the data in general, not just this model, no? It would make sense to document the steps taken and things found and remedies implemented on this page, but having them part of the definition seems problematic. I think I sent that as an email, but I think it would be better to track this on the wiki to have a trail for the decisions. Ttenbergen 12:03, 25 June 2025 (CDT)


    		12 August 2025 20:43:59
    Readmission to MedWardJulie
    • when we were setting up LAU collection readmission data we realized that we are not clear on what exactly is included in a Discharged to community. We should decide how to define that and whether it should apply here and/or for other reports.
    • In a meeting with Dan, Julie and Tina we also realized we need to include the newer home with supports etc in the definition of where someone was discharged to, and we may want to base this on Visit_Admit_dttm instead and so consider re-admission to either CC or med. If I understand right, the current definition considers someone who is re-admitted to ED the next day but then spends a week in CC before coming to a medicine bed is not considered a re-admission to medicine. I think EMIPs are excluded in the same way.
    		24 November 2025 21:36:16
    Selkirk Mental Health CentreTina
    Task
    • I am unclear with these instructions, if indirect code as applicable? if we are using chronic care facility, like we do for Riverview and Deer Lodge (DLC), we have Riverview as an option for if they arrive as a direct or indirect, but now Deer Lodge (DLC) and Selkirk mental health are not an option, shouldn't we be treating these all the same? There is a question on the Chronic Health Facility Lisa Kaita 17:50, 16 June 2025 (CDT)
      • I agree we should treat them the same. Also, there is now Eden Mental Health Centre in Winkler, which is listed together with Selkirk on the File:GRA ALC Form.pdf. Selkirk groups together with PCHs when reported, so to treat Eden similar to Selkirk in the absence of separate record, the most consistent coding would be "Manitoba PCH outside of Winnipeg". That is probably not where a user of our data would expect to find this. Should we consider any of the residential addiction treatment centres the same way (Bruce Oake Recovery Centre, Native Addictions Council of Manitoba, ...)?


    JALT

    • currently aggregated as "PCH" because S dispo.loc type is PCH. That seems wrong. Should it be changed to “unknown/other” or to a new category “Mental Health”? And should we add Eden Mental Health Centre as well? Ttenbergen 16:21, 29 October 2025 (CDT)
    		26 November 2025 21:29:21
    Service tmp post-send consistency checksJulie
  • As discussed at JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#JALT 2025-11-27: Do we need any post-send, cross-record checks relating to Service tmp entry? Ttenbergen 16:44, 27 November 2025 (CST)
    		• 27 November 2025 22:44:27
    Service/Location fieldLisa
    Julie
    • SMW


    • Cargo


    • Categories
    		26 September 2025 19:54:49
    Sex fieldTask
    • I just came across an incomplete record (from S9 laptop) that has a sex entry "Undiff". Our dropdown doesn't contain this so this likely came from Cognos. If this is now being coded in EPR, and considering that this would affect the "biological sex" we use in defining this, should we introduce this as an option? If we do not want to introduce this as an option, do our cross checks catch this? They might not, since this could not have been entered manually. Ttenbergen 00:16, 12 November 2025 (CST)
    		12 November 2025 06:16:35
    St.Amantall
    Task
    • Is that actually true, that we use the code for patients in one of their residential programs? Would we even know the patient is, considering many are now set up as home-stays or group homes? Or do we only collect this for people who actually live there, if there is still such a thing? Ttenbergen 15:40, 29 October 2025 (CDT)
    • I ran a query to check and


    Since 2022: Pre acute living situation for patients where Dispo is St Amant has been recorded as:

    • 23 Chronic Health Facility
    • 14 Community Facility with support
    • 5 Personal Care Home
    • 2 House
    • 1 other - known but not listed
    • 1 Apartment

    Pre acute living situation for patients where Previous Location is St Amant has been recorded as:

    • 1 Apartment
    • 1 Personal Care Home

    How are we using this code, and how should we use it? Ttenbergen 16:07, 29 October 2025 (CDT)

    * When I have seen this in a chart the address is usually 440 River Road, which is the St Amant facility, I code it as per the wiki instructions, as a chronic care facility. I know that St Amant has several group homes as well, but I wouldn't know their addresses and the documentation is usually not that specific to include who manages the group home. With the new dispo options, group homes would be transfer to group/supportive housing Lisa Kaita 15:46, 26 November 2025 (CST)    		26 November 2025 21:46:22
    Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entryJulie
    • Grace Hospital not filled this out according to instructions documented here, but some old version instead. That makes data between GRA and other sites problematic to compare. Lisa and Gail have more info. We should document which version they have been using so it can be accounted for when using this data.
    		27 June 2025 19:15:51
    pre_acute_living_situation fieldTaskJALT should we be including Misericordia TCU here? Lisa Kaita 11:57, 5 June 2025 (CDT)
    • We found some cases where, during the same hospitalization, there are different values for this. For example, the first ward admission may have "house" and the immediate next ICU admission may have "PCH". I think there is no scenario where that makes sense. If you can think of one, tell me.
    • For existing data like this, how would we best treat it heuristically. Would the first record be more likely to be right because the chart is still cleaner and easier to follow? Or would a later record be more likely to be correct since more of the patient's story would have emerged? Thoughts?
    • This may arise when we complete the profiles separately ie. medicine done before ICU or vice versa, and more information may be more available in the chart, or it may have been an error where one was updated the other was not Lisa Kaita 15:32, 26 November 2025 (CST)
    		26 November 2025 21:32:33
    s_dispo tableJulie
    • "Hospice - other, WPG" is currently not grouped as Hospital = "Other Institution in WPG" as the other hospices - should it be? Ttenbergen 17:03, 11 March 2025 (CDT)
    		27 September 2025 02:12:27
    s_dispo.centerJulieIs this just an arbitrary sorting of units or is there a plan to it? Ttenbergen 16:02, 11 March 2025 (CDT)11 March 2025 22:09:28
    s_dispo.geogJulie== Use ==

    ???
    Should these be geog = winnipeg

    • Interventional Radiology
    • Other Procedure Location
    		12 March 2025 04:47:50
    s_dispo.loc_typeJulie
  • in s_dispo table HSC Lennox Bell is listed as loc_type=unknown/other ; many in that location would be most similar to "home", so should these be grouped as "non-patient" instead? Wherever we deal with "home", are we already including these? For example, for Readmission to MedWard, would we include anyone who has been discharged to a "non-patient" location, or do we use more explicit groupings? Ttenbergen 15:24, 11 March 2025 (CDT)
  • also in s_dispo table HSC Lennox Bell is listed as site=HSC; it kind of is, but wherever that column is used to group, would this be a location we would expect in that group? Or should it be blank? Ttenbergen 15:24, 11 March 2025 (CDT)
    		• 11 March 2025 22:13:35

    Review

    This article is tagged to be reviewed periodically. The next scheduled review is on 1 Jan 1900.

    Related articles

    Related articles:
    Retrieved from "https://ccmdb.kuality.ca/index.php?title=Portal_related_pages_with_questions&oldid=153817"