Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

• DSM Lab Extract  + ( * A possibility to change the current [[Chart]] entry to be the same with SH format (see [[#DSM Inclusion Criteria/ Process]] for reason why in details). )
• Query NDC Bad Postal Code  + ( * I think this is the process where you s … </br>* I think this is the process where you said you are having problems with copy/pasting. Copy pasting isn't even mentioned here, so maybe update the process to show how you actually do this, so that someone like Sheila Rusnak would be able to follow the instructions. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:45, 2022 March 17 (CDT)</br>** Do you create that query each time? Would we be able to update the NDC query that finds these in the first place to include the info you need? We can discuss at our next meeting. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:23, 2022 March 17 (CDT)</br>*** Taking this off Pagasa's list for now, since if we can get this data from DSS we won't need to do this any more. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:36, 2022 March 24 (CDT)</br>[[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:36, 2022 March 24 (CDT) )
• SBGH Swing Beds  + (Are there actually differences in how CC, … Are there actually differences in how CC, Med or different laptops do this? Or is the following correct for all? </br></br>* Since any [[CUS]] entry at STB may be either a swing bed or a real bed, service locations and times need review. </br>* For Medicine, the swing bed entries will often be obvious as the unit stays will be a matter of minutes</br>* If a [[CUS]] entry is for a swing bed, manually exclude using the [["exclude" button]] </br>* Any ICU pt. may be placed into a swing bed, but the majority of swing beds are used for the ICCS pt's. The pt. is placed in a swing bed while in the OR, and then moved into a real bed post op when they arrive in the CICU. Their stay in a swing bed may be any length of time. The true arrive Dt/Tm is taken from the ICU flow sheets.</br>* if a pt. was placed into an ICU swing bed but was never admitted to the ICU, the pt. entries are manually excluded from [[Cognos]] when reviewed.</br></br>* I would feel more comfortable if a collector from SBGH reviewed this, as I haven't been there for some time and I am not 100% certain how they are dealing with swing beds [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 13:06, 2022 August 24 (CDT)</br>*Pam tweaked the above, just waiting for Val to weigh in [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 13:30, 2022 August 24 (CDT) </br>** Are we still waiting for feedback on this one? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:57, 2023 May 24 (CDT)[[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:57, 2023 May 24 (CDT))
• Change of remaining location names from "our" names to EPR/Cognos names  + (JALT - Is there anything here we want to d … JALT - Is there anything here we want to do before SF? Or that still needs to be done at all? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:42, 2023 July 6 (CDT)</br>* 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. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 16:33, 2022 February 2 (CST) </br>** 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? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 13:44, 2022 February 8 (CST)</br>*** Julie and Tina discussed: </br>:::* 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. </br>:::* 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. </br>:::* 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. </br>:::* 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. </br>:::* 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? </br>*** 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. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:56, 2022 March 23 (CDT) </br>**** agree. pass to lisa. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 15:27, 2022 June 8 (CDT)</br>*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 [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 12:23, 2022 August 24 (CDT)</br>** Even though this is no longer an issue, we should keep the above 5 summary issues here for future reference. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 13:38, 2024 March 12 (CDT)[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 13:38, 2024 March 12 (CDT))