View table: Discussions

• Assigning Pseudo Phin or working on the queries if I worked long enough opened closed it then the error message pop up "Enter Parameter Value". PTorres 17:01, 2022 April 14 (CDT)
  • What is the specific action or button press after which this happens? I.e. which step in Generating PseudoPHINs? Ttenbergen 10:49, 2022 November 16 (CST)
    • When I click the pseudo button to the left of the PHIN field label, nothing is moving.PTorres 15:23, 2022 November 30 (CST)
      • I don't understand what you mean by that. What is the last thing you do before the "Enter Parameter Value" error happens? As in, what is the last button you click or last field you enter? Ttenbergen 12:15, 2022 December 7 (CST)

• Identified as something we should do to streamline data collection. I have made this page to document progress toward this import. Blood gas data is in DSM listing; need to compare to see if we can use it
  • Allan will revisit with Lab people whether this is obtainable now Ttenbergen 11:34, 2022 February 9 (CST)
    • Allan is negotiating inclusion of Labs data with Grace hospital as per Task_Team_Meeting_-_Rolling_Agenda_and_Minutes_2023#ICU Database Task Group Meeting – April 19, 2023, leaving this flagged to ensure update. Ttenbergen 14:00, 2023 May 17 (CDT)

Task

• 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)

• I just saw this line, its probably been there for a while, but just thinking that in our definition of community living with support, in Pre acute living situation, we include assisted living, supportive housing, AIA, lennox bell, and 1010 Sinclair, we currently do not use this code for these dispo locations, should we include them or we should rethink this Lisa Kaita 21:24, 10 June 2025 (CDT)
  • I actually just don't understand what this means... is the full statement "This includes those living in a community facility with support and being panelled for PCH" or what? In any case, yes, judging by how often this comes up in a search, we should likely make a page for community facility with support and store the details there to be back-linkable if we mess with the concept anywhere. Possibly that should be a template:community facility with support instead or in addition, depending on the details we need. But have a look at the search link above and let's make sure we pick the right solution that can tie in to everywhere the concept is used. Ttenbergen 00:42, 11 June 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)
  • no idea I checked the hx and it looks like you entered this comment? can we remove it? Lisa Kaita 19:47, 9 March 2026 (CDT)
    • It's more like I turned something in the instructions into a comment. Before we remove it we should make sure that Julie really doesn't use it. And if we use it for crosschecks it should probably be an official cross check, not one that adds work later. Ttenbergen 00:31, 11 March 2026 (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)
    • The LOS stats per Boarding Location per site are only reported in Directors Quarterly and Annual Report (Medicine) for all already discharged with dispo dttm in both complete and incomplete profiles. The start dttms are sorted first from earliest to latest. The LOS is calculated as the difference between the start dttms between two consecutive boarding locations and/or between last boarding loc start dttm and dispo dttm. The LOS is accounted to the boarding location with earlier start dttm. Any LOS found zero or negative is being checked and fixed before being reported. --JMojica 12:22, 23 January 2026 (CST)
    • ICU tmp boarding loc is not reported before 2026 but will now be used when categorizing the 5 Scenario prescribed by Allan. --JMojica 12:22, 23 January 2026 (CST)
      • Would that include incomplete records, though? My question here is to see if we can make the check run only for complete records to avoid that entry that is made only to avoid getting an error? Ttenbergen 02:55, 25 January 2026 (CST)

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)

• will there be a regular report for Andie, or is the change to ICU Acquired Ulcer Rate all that was needed? If so, here is the start, lets spin it out into its own page. If not, we can delete this discussion. Ttenbergen 23:31, 11 July 2025 (CDT)

Once complete the following section is used on any report page to provide structured data

the following is needed for the application of the Report template

Program: Critical Care
StartDtTm: <eg 2018-01-01>
EndDtTm: <eg 2018-01-01>
Frequency: <eg monthly, quarterly, annually, as requested>
ContactPerson: <names, organization if outside of Shared Health>
Recipients: <names>
MailingList: <Outlook list if applicable>
DataDependencies: <likely list of dxs, possibly including admit or dispo dttm>
SASFiles: <path(s) for SAS files>

JALT

• Julie found data discrepancies and asked if we could review doing cross checks at least on records with the same Visit Admit DtTm for the following fields:
  • Pre acute living situation
  • Province field
  • Postal Code
• We reviewed a broader cross check proposal (link below) in some detail in a version available in the history of this page], so if we consider adding this we should confirm that none of those apply to any checks. Or we can ignore and just implement as soft-checks. Thoughts? Ttenbergen 12:28, 17 December 2025 (CST)

• Discussed this at JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#JALT 2025-03-11 but I don't remember if we came to an answer or next step. Just found a note to add that we will also need to decide if any of these are in-patient locations. This would make them collectable as Pre-admit Inpatient Institution, and is relevant as per Pre-admit Inpatient Institution field#Data Use / Purpose.
• are you referring to PCH's because they are not inpt locations or are you referring to chronic health facilities? Lisa Kaita 14:52, 25 June 2025 (CDT)

• These should be made consistent with [[Template:PCH Riverview Deer Lodge (DLC)]] and should probably use that template to enforce consistent use. Ttenbergen 14:23, 2024 October 16 (CDT)
  • and I have lost track of the details Ttenbergen 10:45, 2024 November 1 (CDT)
    • There might be an easy way out of this question. We now only have one awaiting code; if waiting for any of them qualifies for this code then we may not need to know about the level of care. But then again, some of those sites also have acute/LAU type settings so we may need to figure this out after all...Ttenbergen 20:27, 2024 December 11 (CST)
• that template does not exist or I can't find it Lisa Kaita 14:56, 25 June 2025 (CDT)

• 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 Riverview and Deer Lodge (DLC), with the exception of the PCH units in each facility.Lisa Kaita 14:52, 25 June 2025 (CDT)
• We have had patients admitted from the chronic care unit at Deer Lodge (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? Lisa Kaita 12:32, 24 November 2025 (CST)
  • They live there, so that makes this also related to Collection of locations on the spectrum between home and PCH. Ttenbergen 18:00, 27 November 2025 (CST)
• so we will continue to enter as Chronic health facility for now Lisa Kaita 07:43, 28 November 2025 (CST)

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.

• Discussed at
  • Task Team Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#CHF4
  • Task Team Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#CHF3
  • JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#CHF2
  • Task Team Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#CHF1

JALT

• Province - That definition doesn't make it clear to me whether the entry should be "NK Not Known / Not available" or "MB" - can we clarify that? Ttenbergen 00:17, 12 July 2025 (CDT)

* who should we clarify with, I would think if they have a MB PHIN or are self pay then you would choose MB, if they don't then I would choose Not known Lisa Kaita 21:25, 6 September 2025 (CDT)

• more of a "tighten definition" than "check with"; from talking with SW this population frequently doesn't have their paperwork or registrations figured out, or their MB Health status has expired even if they would theoretically be covered, etc. This all came up when Julie checked for outliers and compared the province and postal code to determine status for homelessness.

Integrate these better

• re pre admit for outside Winnipeg facility discussion, change from getting from Previous Location only to getting it from both Previous Location and Pre-admit Inpatient Institution; this was missed before because we based the initial fields on the last overstay project, and back then these two fields were still combined
• re-institute amputation; before we were only looking at the CCI code, but we should consider Past history, loss of limb(s) as well

JALT

Just a placeholder for now because the idea of how we define dispo to community (or for that matter, re-admit Previous Location) in data came up re. things like Readmission to MedWard and others. We have the obvious "Home" but if someone is discharged to something like Dialysis, would that also count? How do we define? Ideally by a column in s_dispo table such as s_dispo.loc_type, but that one uses "non-patient" which it also uses for Deceased patients (should we just split that out?). There is probably even more to this. Likely Julie has more than one approach in reporting. This came up because we were looking to define this for LAU collection readmission data.

• This is actually just as much regarding to admitted from community, so maybe this should just be renamed to "outpatient sites in s_dispo table"?

• This will need to be concistent with the concept of Pre-admit Inpatient Institution field ie they should not overlap, and possibly an entry's inclusion in that (ie s_dispo.inpatient unchecked) could be a way to define this.

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)

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:

• 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)
• I think these are covered in the instructions above can we remove this discussion? Lisa Kaita 20:32, 9 March 2026 (CDT)
  • Many are, Lennox is not. Not sure which others we would want someone to code when Cognos says "trsf to residential". Ttenbergen 02:10, 11 March 2026 (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)

do we need to be specific here that this should always mean setting a boarding loc to a later dttm in case a pt was there earlier? I would not want someone to omit an initial boarding loc and set the second location's time to earlier

• wouldn't our cross checks capture this? As long as collectors follow the above instruction the first boarding loc has to have the same DTTM Lisa Kaita 11:16, 7 August 2025 (CDT)

Will need to write a better page later. This error happens when the batch file ccmdb_starter.bat we use to start CCMDB.accdb hits a problem. I need to fix the file rather than have us bypass it, it does a few things that prevent recurrent problems. If Shared Health fixes the problem for a collector they will likely bypass the file which takes us out of our standardized setup so we should avoid it. I will try to look at it this week. Ttenbergen 09:45, 13 April 2026 (CDT)

this is one of the things we needed to discuss further, currently we capture RR5 as HSC_ward, but it is a combination of spinal cord rehab, NMSK rehab, amputation rehab, Riverview has stroke rehab, Deer Lodge (DLC) has Geri rehab, If we are capturing these rehab wards for CGH, SOGH and VGH should we not be capturing this for all dispo locations that are rehab? Lisa Kaita 13:11, 8 April 2025 (CDT)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• We need to confirm that the change is properly linked and contextualized on 2025-05 Revision of concept around ICUotherService (one of the Change Explainer Pages) to allow a user of our data to reconstruct a continuous conceptual timeline. Someone other than me should review that page to confirm that the change is explained fully enough to make sense of the before and after data Ttenbergen 14:44, 23 December 2025 (CST)

JALT

• Entries for these would affect Overstay2 Overview and initial entry practice isn't currently clear in Minimal Data Set; is there anything we need to review with that in mind? Ttenbergen 13:47, 20 June 2025 (CDT)
  • Most of our JD patients are identified at some point during their admission, I can't think of any that haven't been, are there many in the database? Lisa Kaita 21:29, 6 September 2025 (CDT)
    • We use some of this data while incomplete, and it also has been a candidate for overstay parameters. Think of it coming from the "is this patient from Manitoba" vs "is this patient a JD". Even if they eventually become identified, that doesn't help with initial data. We are trying to define how this data should be handled in that scenario as well. Ttenbergen 10:13, 8 September 2025 (CDT)
• Julie had added some chart info for JD patients to the Postal code page, but its about chart so belongs here or in the chart page. So: do we want to consolidate the JD info here and link to field pages, or in field pages and link to this and use this just as an index? Or do we want templates for each so we can list the whole bit consistently on both? Ttenbergen 09:47, 11 August 2025 (CDT)

• 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)

the question template messes up the table below, the questions apply to the equivalent new dxs. If we want to leave them as "~" or explained that there is no 1-1 translation and removing the question mark that would be clearer: it's not that we are undecided, it's that there is no mapping. Thoughts? Came across this when updating the link for Cystic Fibrosis... Ttenbergen 12:30, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• Manitoba RHAs is not currently considered under Data Dependencies, a blind spot we should probably fix if we do, we should probably do it by making separate pages for Postal_Code_Master.rhaname and s_dispo.MB_RHA with proper use of Template:Data element, and up date the Data Dependencies in Reports and Indicators accordingly. Ttenbergen 14:53, 20 June 2025 (CDT)

JALT

• Julie would like to use these for Intended1stSrvc. Right now they are pulled in from Cognos, but not validated (query check_tmp_Boarding_Loc_Service_first_same doesn't run until complete. Can we turn that into a Minimal Data Set check? Just making these the same isn't the answer, we use first vital signs and getting these made the same without that would still leave us with problematic data.

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• 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.

• 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)

• This link currently does not work anymore, update for relevance?
  • https://web.archive.org/ has this version but if it was removed from the site it may be superseded and we should consider if there is a newer version that might change instructions. Also, see RottenLinks. Ttenbergen 14:27, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

• 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)

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)

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.

ER Delay and Overstay

• Need to make sure I do things this way and include this in the right pages, possibly Change from Service Location to Service, Boarding Loc and Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry but a lot of other pages touch on this, so maybe it needs to be a template? It may not be consistent everywhere:

Note from email from Julie 2024-20-24: I do not use any cut-off e.g. 2020-10-15 because the tmp has been populated by boarding data since July 2018 for ICU and Sept 2019 for Med. The cut-off Oct 2020 Patient Follow only applies for tmp Service but not for tmp Boarding loc. By the way. the patient follow started early at Grace Oct 1, 2020 (they piloted it), while HSC and STB started Oct15, 2020. Similar with EMIPs, I have two sources of ER-delay namely 1. from Accept and Arrive 2. from Tmp : first boarding dttm and second boarding dttm. If both have values, I use the one from the tmp source.

JALT

• 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)

• This code can also be used as a Comorbid Diagnosis if the patient is experiencing any of the above, or as an Acquired Diagnosis
  • LK, you added almost the same to the homeless statement above; is the info unique to the homeless statement or should it apply to all parts and therefore stated separately here or even at top?

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)

DRQ

• 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)

• 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)
  • Data definition for factor candidates for the Overstay2 project shows we are using PCH and Chronic Care as a group, they contribute equally to the score. The entry for Deer Lodge (DLC) in s_dispo table has s_dispo.loc_type "PCH", so entering Deer Lodge will also group this consistently. I am not sure that answers your question, though... should we consider it PCH for collection or data use purposes? If it is always clear when a patient comes from the Chronic Care part of DLC then maybe we should break this out? Ttenbergen 22:25, 26 November 2025 (CST)
• yes that answers my question, for the most part we can figure it out through the notes, lets leave collection as is. If you are ok with this lets take it off the JALT list Lisa Kaita 09:06, 17 December 2025 (CST)
• Agreed it doesn't need to be on JALT. I will keep it around as a comment because it's part of the whole Chronic Health Facility issue. Ttenbergen 11:44, 17 December 2025 (CST)