Sorry to be so dense in my earlier message but I was confused by the title of the ticket. I assume that "visits" are meant to mean "face-to-face encounters", ignoring the remainder of encounters which are voluminous in Epic and include administrative and clinical events during which the patient is not physically present? If that is the intended meaning of 'visit' then I thought that our previous discussions within the QA team was that we would use 'face-to-face' encounter types for calculation of enrolled population. In that spirit we have deployed encounter types on Babel to include 'direct patient-provider contact' and it is my assumption that we will use these encounter events to calculate enrollment populations. Jim
________________________________________ From: Debbie Yoshihara [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:19 AM To: Bushee, Glenn; Campbell, James R; <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [gpc-informatics] #196: Should the "active patient" be based on visits or encounters? At Wisconsin, we get 528,214 for the first query, 355,263 for the second, so yes, our results mirror yours in that the numbers are quite different. --- Debbie On 11/18/2014 9:49 PM, Bushee, Glenn wrote: > From our data loading perspective, when entering information from a > medication order / dispense, for example, if there is an associated encounter > number we include it, but with the date in the particular table extracted > from. So, from the observation_fact perspective, there are going to be many > more entries in the query that includes the lag function than the one I ran > back in September. > > We’re loading the visit_dimension based on the PAT_ENC table data alone and > the encounter start/end dates there. > > If the numbers from the two queries weren’t so far off, then I’d agree that > this is only a semantic distinction. Did anyone else have numberers that > were way different or is this uncovering a difference in practice with our > data loading steps? > > - Glenn > > Medical Informatics Senior Analyst > CTSI – Clinical & Translational Science Institute > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > (414) 805-7239 > > From: <Campbell>, James R <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 9:23 PM > To: "<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, George Kowalski > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Glenn Bushee > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [gpc-informatics] #196: Should the "active patient" be based on > visits or encounters? > > From the structure of our EHR and my understanding as > clinician/informatician I cannot help but ask what is the difference between > a visit and and encounter? A visit with me > as pricare is an encounter and most face-to-face with clinicians are > encounters. What is the distinction we are seeking here? > Jim > > James R. Campbell MD > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Office: 402-559-7505 > Secretary: 402-559-7299 > Pager: 402-888-1230 > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:21 PM, "GPC Informatics" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > #196: Should the "active patient" be based on visits or encounters? > --------------------------+----------------------- > Reporter: mish | Owner: mish > Type: problem | Status: assigned > Priority: minor | Milestone: > Component: data-quality | Resolution: > Keywords: | Blocked By: > Blocking: | > --------------------------+----------------------- > Changes (by mish): > > * priority: major => minor > * status: new => assigned > > > -- > Ticket URL: > <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/196#comment:1> > gpc-informatics <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/> > Greater Plains Network - Informatics > > The information in this e-mail may be privileged and confidential, intended > only for the use of the addressee(s) above. Any unauthorized use or > disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you have received this > e-mail by mistake, please delete it and immediately contact the sender. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gpc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
