Thanks for the replies. Nathan - for the patients 36 months or less: do you shift the birthdate +/- 30 days and then provide the user with the shifted birthdate value and/or age concept represented in years/months? Have you found times when even a +/- 30 day shift causes issues with pediatricians (or other users)? We currently use a date shift between -1 and -365 days but I'm thinking that may be too extreme.
Regards, Justin Dale Manager - Research Development and Support University of Minnesota Academic Health Center - Office of Information Systems Phone: 612.624.9747 Fax: 612.624.7458 [email protected] On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Wilson Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > Here at UW-Madison we currently group all patients whose age is less > than 1 years old into a single age category called "0 Years Old". This > however did not work well with pediatricians here, so we are in the process > of implementing an ontology which will calculate a patients age for > patients 36 months or less based the patients shifted birthdate in addition > to the traditional concept based age approach. > > > > Nathan Wilson > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Justin Dale > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:04 AM > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* [Gpc-dev] de-identification - patients under 1 year old > > > > Seeking input on how your site represents a patient's age who is under 1 > year old? Do you group them in the 1 year old bucket (similar to 90 and > over)? Do you provide fractions of a year or represent months (seems like > it goes against the safe harbor rules)? Do you shift the birthdate and > just provide that? Thanks. > > > > Justin >
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
