Search by property

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "DiscussQuestion" with value "If we need this page at all it needs to be integrated better.". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

⧼showingresults⧽

View (previous 1,000 | next 1,000) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

    

List of results

     (If we need this page at all it needs to be integrated better.)
    • 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))
    • Query cardiac arrest throughout admission  + (JALT Review after 2023-09-15 * Lisa flagge … JALT Review after 2023-09-15</br>* 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. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:43, 2023 July 13 (CDT)[[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:43, 2023 July 13 (CDT))
    • Hemothorax or hemopneumothorax, nontraumatic  + (Just wondering whether this code could be … Just wondering whether this code could be combined with iatrogenic causes similar to the guideline for:</br></br>Guideline for Iatrogenic Pneumothorax</br></br>According to our general rule of not coding iatrogenic events as traumas, code an iatrogenic pneumothorax as</br></br></br>Iatrogenic, puncture or laceration, related to a procedure or surgery NOS</br></br>Plus the most appropriate of the following;</br></br>Pneumothorax, tension, nontraumatic</br></br>Pneumothorax, nontension, nontraumatic</br></br>Pneumothorax, nontraumatic, NOS </br></br>Thanks, [[User:Ppiche|Pamela Piche]] 08:55, 2024 March 19 (CDT)</br>*Allan made the initial entry of not to use this as an iatrogenic or trauma code in 2017, so let's discuss this at TASK [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 15:03, 2024 April 5 (CDT)[[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 15:03, 2024 April 5 (CDT))
    • High-Obs Wards  + (Tina to add.)
    • Template:ICD10 Guideline Sepsis  + (How hard of a rule is lactate >2? If they meet the criteria for septic shock with the exception of a high enough lactate, can we code septic shock [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 12:17, 2024 April 17 (CDT))
    • Severe sepsis  + (How hard of a rule is lactate >2? If they meet the criteria for septic shock with the exception of a high enough lactate, can we code septic shock [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 12:17, 2024 April 17 (CDT))
    • Shock, septic  + (How hard of a rule is lactate >2? If they meet the criteria for septic shock with the exception of a high enough lactate, can we code septic shock [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 12:17, 2024 April 17 (CDT))
    • Sepsis (SIRS due to infection, without acute organ failure)  + (How hard of a rule is lactate >2? If they meet the criteria for septic shock with the exception of a high enough lactate, can we code septic shock [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 12:17, 2024 April 17 (CDT))
    • APACHE Comorbidities in ICD10 codes  + (You asked for a spot for this info)
    • APACHE Acute Dxs in ICD10 codes  + (You asked for a spot for this info)
    • Gangrene, NOS  + (can we use this code for necrosis or necrotic wounds? [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 11:57, 2024 April 17 (CDT))
    • Stroke, NOS  + (we need clarification on when to use this code, eg. if there is a history where it says a history of stroke, or if on CT they comment remote lacunar infarcts? [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 12:01, 2024 April 17 (CDT))
    • Template:ICD10 Guideline MRSA  + (z "It was decided that Allan with contact Dr. Embil after COVID is over and see if we can obtain this data from Infection Control. If so, we could import it into the database, and have our data collectors cease obtaining it." - did anything come of that?)
    Retrieved from "https://ccmdb.kuality.ca/index.php?title=Special:SearchByProperty/:DiscussQuestion/If-20we-20need-20this-20page-20at-20all-20it-20needs-20to-20be-20integrated-20better."