Team Meeting December 2, 2009

• DATE: Wednesday, December 2, 2009
• TIME: 1300-1500 hours
• Place: HSC-John Buhler Research Center Conference Room - JB700

See second map on HSC site Map.

Agenda:

1. Peer Audit
2. Collection elements-changes planned
3. 1440-1500 hrs Guest speaker: CHANGES: Pam Schille, Coordinator Organ donation.

• Before Friday Nov 20th please indicate below if you are attending or not. Thanks

Will attend

• LHathout
• LKolesar 11:20, 12 November 2009 (CST)
• Mary Lou Waschuk
• Wendy Turner--Wturner 15:46, 16 November 2009 (CST)
• Con Marks
• Pat Stein
• Joyce Peterson
• Marie LaPorte
• Lois Bilesky
• Fran Lindell
• Tara Angell
• Shirley Kiesman
• TOstryzniuk 18:15, 17 November 2009 (CST)
• Ttenbergen 09:41, 18 November 2009 (CST)
• JMojica 14:49, 18 November 2009 (CST)
• Elaine Nagy
• Gayle DarrochGDarroch 12:23, 19 November 2009 (CST)
• Debbie Page-NewtonDPageNewton 15:28, 19 November 2009 (CST)
• Jackie Winestock
• Wendy Gobert
• Norine Miller
• Dr. Dan Roberts

Unable to attend

Betty deVlaming

Gail Hall

Darlene Smith

Kym Wiebe

did not attend

• Sheila Dowson
• SCortilet 12:46, 12 November 2009 (CST)Stephanie Cortilet

Discussion

• What items would collectors liked at this meet?--TOstryzniuk 22:57, 3 November 2009 (CST)
  • Do we need another session about something wiki specific? People still tell me that they don't have the time to look at the recent changes. If it's done right, it should only take 5 minutes most days (OK, some days Trish and I get a bit edit-happy, on those days it might be 8 minutes)... Ttenbergen 18:12, 4 November 2009 (CST)
  • If we are adding peer reviewed audits into our workload, I would like to know what part of our workload is being taken away? We already have increased workload with septic shock and other tmp studies. I suggest that some of the lab counts be removed as already agreed with the steering committee. Any reduction would be welcome. I would like this discussed at the meeting and wondering what the delay is for reduction?? --LKolesar 18:44, 8 November 2009 (CST)
    • I agree with Laura, if we are adding peer audits to our workload what are we dropping to have time. My worklaod has increased significantly over the last few years. Some of the changes are the wiki, Emailing other units about patients, reading emails, finding pathogens, extra studies such as the septic study,and now my bed count has been increased and these patients are complicated most of the time. LOIS
  • Would it be beneficial to have the ACCESS priortize the acquired complications? What I mean by this is often a pt will end up with more than 9 acquireds and it is up to the data collector to decide which ones should be deleted and which ones should not. Sometimes it is not always clear which ones to keep because I don't know which ones give more points or which ones are more important to send. We use to have to decide this with comos but now we enter all of them and ACCESS then priortizes for us. Can something similar be done with the acquireds?--MWaschuk 09:22, 16 November 2009 (CST)
    • Good idea Mary Lou. I have thought about this before. We would need to decide how exactly we are supposed to prioritize. Right now the complications aer entered chronologically. There are not usually supposed to be more than the 9 allowed. However, when there are, I understand you would leave out the least important ones, right? To implement that, I would need some sort of scoring to rank importance. Trish put up the list under Significant complications medicine, and that would be a start - it would give a ranking of "yes" or "no". So, would it be correct if (1) sort by importance followed by chronological (i.e. priority) order (2) eliminate elements 10 and later (3) re-sort by priority and output? Trish? Ttenbergen 12:13, 30 November 2009 (CST)

Minutes

• Minutes Team Meeting December 2, 2009--TOstryzniuk 17:51, 7 December 2009 (CST)