From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a property of type text.

Showing 20 pages using this property.
this still talks about TMSX... what is the new status of this field?  +, Does this mean time spent in an ICU between wards is included in the LOS? If not, can we tweak the text so that is clearer?  +, [[p:Dr. Dan Roberts]] You had this as "PRESCRIBED BY: "; which is not how you set it in [[Template:Reporting Indicators]]. Also, Dan is likely no longer the user of this, so it should probably be updated. If we use a title rather than a name it will be self updating.  +,
'* What if awaiting code is primary reason? Sent Allan an email with counts about this. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 14:03, 2021 August 26 (CDT)  +, Not sure why this is listed in this spot, but Tina has made the time component available in the [[Dx Date]] field and updated instructions.  +
* Any checks required for these?   +, * ... 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) ** 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) *** I am checking the sum of all counts in CCI since collectors can enter them over time, so for now I can do a cross check over overall LOS. If we want to break the cross check down further, let's discuss. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:49, 2021 September 15 (CDT)   +
what exactly do we want to check for? Please also have a look at the stuff below that doesn't specifically have your name. This requested check ties into a bunch of things and if we want the check we need to be sure that instructions stay consistent and lose ends are tied up.  +, * from a data perspective, what do you mean by "admitted directly"? If I were to build a check, where would I find that? OR maybe I don't need to know, but then I need to have a definition of what combination of data would be an error. Integrity check * if [[Previous Location field]] ='Home' then [[Pre acute living situation field]] is either Apartment, [[Assisted Living]],[[Supportive Housing]],[[Prison / Jail / Correctional Institution]] or House; otherwise Error. * if [[Previous Location field]] = 'Deer Lodge' or 'Riverview' or 'St Amant' then [[Pre acute living situation field]] = [[Chronic Health Facility]]; otherwise Error. * if [[Previous Location field]] = 'any PCH location' then [[Pre acute living situation field]] = [[Personal Care Home]]; otherwise Error.   +, * ... unless they are discharged somewhere else entirely, like another ward. So what do we really mean with this? That they can't come from one PCH and go to another or maybe "home" after all? ** I realize this maybe hard to do. what I mean here is that if one is already a PCH resident, when leaving the hospital, the dispo location must be a PCH location too. or is a patient is already in CHF, the destination when leaving the hospital must either be a CHF or another PCH.   +,
* what would even be the actual definition of a surgical / SICU ECIP? There is no surgical equivalent to a "Critical Care service" it seems. Ttenbergen 15:36, 2020 October 6 (CDT)   +, * As per email discussion with Lisa: "We could also have a safety net where by the other ICU collectors could email the collectors at HSC when they receive an admission from HSC ER?" ** If others receiving an admission from HSC ER would be a filter, we might actually have that info in Cognos, it just would not be showing up in your (ie HSC’s) data at this time. But that would mean collectors would always need to review patients who went to another ICU from the HSC ER (and likely the same for the STB ER, possibly even the GRA one...), so that seems like a lot of overhead. Are we OK to just identify SICU ECIPs as a population we likely usually don't capture? Ttenbergen 15:36, 2020 October 6 (CDT) *On the online Bed Board (, there is a column OFF_service Patients which means any patient overflowing to either Resuscitation room in ED, PACU/PARR, ICCS, etc. and entry is real time. For HSC SICU, the common overflow location is PACU (haven’t seen any at ER). Only GRA ICU shows overflows in ER. This may give us a clue for possible ECIP but not sure how DC will crosscheck the online bed board if the timing won't synchronized. maybe we just have to ignore SICU ECIP if there is such a thing. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 16:27, 2020 October 6 (CDT)   +, * For STB: ECIPs under MICU service to Medicine units enter the following for the Medicine profile: ** For [[Previous Location]] enter STB_MICU ** For [[Pre-admit Inpatient Institution]] enter STB_MICU ** For [[Previous Service]] enter critical care * Is that really specific to STB, or even specific at all? Doesn't that just mean following the usual instructions for these three fields? If so, we don't want to duplicate them here, because if anything about them changes, we would miss this spot in any updates. Ttenbergen 12:42, 2020 November 10 (CST)   +,
* Another option, and this seems to be what is being done now, is for collectors to "exclude" unit lines from Cognos that list "wrong" start or end times because part of the time is in a swap location.   +, * One option would be to omit lines with current unit is a swap location from the cognos data via filter automatically, but it's not clear if this will result in the previous and subsequent records having non-matching next locations and previous locations. Can we just delete these lines from Cognos? Ttenbergen 14:03, 2020 August 28 (CDT)   +, One problem with filtering these out would be that, I ''think'', the '''unit''' record for a swap location might be the same as the unit record for a successive stay in that unit; ie. the bed entry chagnes, but the unit remains the same. So, the unit start dttm and unit end dttm don't care if part of the unit stay was in a swap location. Is that not true? If it is true, then how would we filter these out? if I eliminate every line that has a swap/swing bed (which I can do) then we will not get any line for those pts who never get into a real bed on that unit (which may be good), but we would still get the ''same'' line with unit start and end times including the swap/swing time for patients who eventually get into a bed on that unit. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 12:07, 2020 December 2 (CST)  +,
* Any other boarding locs for STB Med?   +
* Apply it to symptoms, physical exam findings, and radiologic findings, but NOT to laboratory findings. ** I don't know which those would be. If we go through with this definition we should just stick them into a :[[Category:Lab Result]] or similar. [[:Category:Testing]] also contains non-lab findings. Where would this leave things like [[Fecal occult blood test, positive]]? The "What links here" link on the left would show all that currently links to this page.   +
* April 2020 HSC_MICU will admitted both SICU and MICU physician Service patients that are either suspect or confirmed COVID patients. No suspect or positive covid will be admitted to HSC SICU. Though MICU is a close unit the SICU patient in this unit will be under the SICU attending service physician. Depending on skill set required, sometime may be a SICU nurse or just MICU nurse. The nurse bit we will not be able to track. We need to ask Randy and Bojan how they want this tracked in Database in terms of service occupancy. Put service Loc as HSC SICU and tag in TMP as boarding location? Julie would some of the logic applied to bed board apply to how we tag this.   +
* Are people using this? Would it be worth having a button to open the record directly from the query screen? Would take about 30 min to set up...   +
* At some point we had disabled [[Query check_ER_Delay_not_too_big]] which would have automatically taken care of this bug, but we have since reinstated around 2021-09-15. Is this again a problem now, or is this solved? If I don't hear back from anyone that this is a problem I will consider it solved in 2 weeks. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 14:39, 2021 November 18 (CST)   +
* Requiring notes to have content is really a very soft error check... do we need to consider something better?   +, * If we actually want a cross check like this it needs to be based not on NTU/CTU. We could either base it on specific units or on [[Level of care hierarchy]], ie. add another column to [[s_level_of_care table]]. Would that work for you? Ttenbergen 23:08, 2020 October 15 (CDT)   +, * At the meeting about cross checks (a long time ago) it was decided to change the cut-off to SD*3; if we want to proceed with this check, I will need values for that. Ttenbergen 23:08, 2020 October 15 (CDT)   +
* Could we remove this from the STB ICU laptops as we are doing a kind of follow system? ** I think Julie still uses this. Also, other sites still have to enter it, they simply always enter the same thing. I think you requested this because of some confusion lately about what defines a new profile at STB CC. And that was important to figure out, and we still need to document it, likely at [[STB Critical Care Collection Guide]]. But once that is clear then entering this field should be trivial. I will send an email to DC STB CC; Jmojica to pls review [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 11:37, 2020 December 10 (CST)   +, * Julie contacted Pam re STB Transitional, and will contact Lisa about HSC transitional and Lennox Bell and other HSC locations.   +
* Different procedures would be listed with the same CCI code; will Julie easily interpret and utilize CCI codes for reporting? * Do we care that we will not be able to differentiate between a Blakemore tube from an Upper GI scope with banding or hemostasis, when in CCI they both look the same: (T) Stomach, pylorus... and Control of Bleeding. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 14:11, 2018 May 1 (CDT) ** discussed at task 14:08, 2018 June 20 (CDT), Julie to review what she needs and we will discuss again Ttenbergen 14:08, 2018 June 20 (CDT)   +
* Do you care if we keep the old entries around, or do you want them converted to plain *Ward entries to show up differently in any reporting you do? If fine as is then we should set this page (and the local equivalents) to Legacy. If you want to convert, we can do that and then delete the old CAU pages.   +, * Do we need to correct these old inconsistencies? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 11:09, 2021 May 5 (CDT)   +
* Does the following need to be moved to one of the sub pages? Or can it be deleted, if it is only about how we used to report (vs store) data in the distant past? === Legacy information === * ''(Legacy: planned surgery used to be excluded, but this stopped because of insufficient data when we stopped collecting some APACHE elements in the medicine program Dec 31, 2006)''   +
* This will likely have changed when we eliminated the 5 minute rule for local transfers; Julie, could you confirm that this was also changed wherever it has an impact? * Does this use [[Arrive DtTm]] or [[Accept DtTm]] in the new schema?   +, * Does this use [[Arrive DtTm]] or [[Accept DtTm]] in the new schema?   +, * That last line seems to be obvious in new schema from the other definitions... is AMA still at all relevant here or can it be taken out?   +,
* How do you figure out why it happened? What are likely scenarios here? Is this related to [[Procedure when there are differences between L Log and L PHI]] or [[Orphans in Centralized data.mdb]]?   +, * so how is this page different from [[Procedure when there are differences between L Log and L PHI]] then?   +
* How should we now keep track of the ward/unit info on the wiki? More questions on page.[[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:07, 2021 July 14 (CDT)   +
* Should we include a request to add a comment in notes when clicking past this to preempt future follow-up? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 13:36, 2021 November 10 (CST)   +, * Most intubated patients eventually get extubated without getting intubated again; this check would flag every one of them! Is that actually what you want, or am I misunderstanding this one?   +, * I don't even understand when this check would ever make sense... what do you mean with this one?   +