In my experience, the
YouArentGonnaNeedIt<http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?YouArentGonnaNeedIt> works well:
Always implement things when you actually need them, never when you just
foresee that you need them.
The wiki page goes on to explain how adding them at a later date will not delay
acquisition of high-quality datasets.
We have to characterize ALS, breast cancer, and obesity cohorts. As to anything
beyond that, I'm not inclined to track design issues until requirements that
motivate them arise.
>From the ALS break-out of the
>hackathon<http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/wiki/HackathonOne> in
>particular, it seems we don't need modifiers for ALS diagnosis:
* modifiers: billing? clinical? doesn’t matter.
* is past medical history too much?
* no
* is past medical history required?
* no
--
Dan
________________________________
From: Miller, Aaron W [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:31 PM
To: Dan Connolly; [email protected]
Subject: RE: modifier proposal from hackathon
Hi Dan,
I am not aware that there are any research questions that have been stated
explicitly. The emphasis of the data group has been to try to be prepared to
answer a broad range of questions, and that is why these modifiers were
identified. If you can point to representative (and broad) list of research
questions that need to be answered, then we can trim this list down. Otherwise,
I would suggest that we pursue intelligent ways to incorporate these types of
data, as adding them at a later date will delay acquisition of high-quality
datasets.
Aaron
Aaron Miller, PhD | Analytics Informatician, Interim Research Analytics Manager
| MCRF - BIRC | (715) 221-6429
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:20 PM
To: Miller, Aaron W; [email protected]
Subject: RE: modifier proposal from hackathon
So we're not yet aware of any such research questions?
Then email discussion is fine... it's interesting stuff... but this design
discussion isn't on our critical path, so I don't need to track it with a
ticket or put it on group teleconference agendas.
--
Dan
________________________________
From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development
[[email protected]] on behalf of Miller, Aaron W
[[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:11 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: modifier proposal from hackathon
Hi Dan,
This list is intended to continue our discussion of diagnosis modifiers. When
specific sources or types of diagnoses are necessary to answer research
questions, these will greatly enhance our ability to respond with precision.
Aaron
Aaron Miller, PhD | Analytics Informatician, Interim Research Analytics Manager
| MCRF - BIRC | (715) 221-6429
From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:05 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: modifier proposal from hackathon
I guess I missed the motivation for these modifiers. Which research questions
benefit from these distinctions?
--
Dan
________________________________
From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development
[[email protected]] on behalf of Wilson Nathan [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:21 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: modifier proposal from hackathon
All,
I talked over the billing section of the outline with one of our business
planning folks who works with hospital account data and based on that
conversation I would recommend the following adjustments to the billing
diagnosis modifiers.
Original:
BILLING DX
DISCHARGE DX PRINCIPAL
DISCHARGE DX NONPRINCIPAL
PROFESSIONAL DX PRIMARY
PROFESSIONAL DX NONPRIMARY
Suggested:
BILLING DIAGNOSIS
ADMIT DIAGNOSIS PRINCIPAL
ADMIT DIAGNOSIS SECONDARY
ADMIT DIAGNOSIS PRESENT ON ADMISSION
DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS PRINCIPAL
DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS SECONDARY
Reasons:
The main set of diagnosis found on the bill are discharge diagnosis (at least
from a CLARITY perspective)
Non-principal diagnosis are collectively referred to as secondary
For admitting diagnosis it is important to know if it is/was present on
admission
Does the group have any thoughts and/or other suggestions?
Nathan Wilson
From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:55 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: modifier proposal from hackathon
This was on the presentation machine at the hackathon.
I gather it's a proposed modifier hierarchy.
--
Dan
________________________________
The contents of this message may contain private, protected and/or privileged
information. If you received this message in error, you should destroy the
e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from
retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any information contained within.
Please contact the sender and advise of the erroneous delivery by return e-mail
or telephone. Thank you for your cooperation.
________________________________
The contents of this message may contain private, protected and/or privileged
information. If you received this message in error, you should destroy the
e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from
retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any information contained within.
Please contact the sender and advise of the erroneous delivery by return e-mail
or telephone. Thank you for your cooperation.
