The fabricated visit won't distinguish among multiple tumors found in one patient. If that case doesn't occur in your data set, very well. But otherwise, that's a significant problem.
The HERON ETL code uses a combination of (per-patient) accession number and sequence number to identify a tumor registry encounter: 341 create or replace view tumor_reg_visits as 342 select ne."Accession Number--Hosp" || '-' || ne."Sequence Number--Hospital" 343 as encounter_ide 344 , ne."Patient ID Number" as MRN 345 from naacr.extract ne 346 where ne."Accession Number--Hosp" is not null; ref https://informatics.kumc.edu/work/browser/heron_load/naaccr_txform.sql#L341 p.s. Note Tamara, Betsy, myself, and others discussed this specific case of handling multiple tumors per patient Aug 29. https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/32#comment:27 p.p.s. I presume it's OK to bring this technical discussion back to the mailing lists (and, consequently, share it publicly). It's important that we all learn together. -- Dan ________________________________________ From: Tamara McMahon Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:39 PM To: 'Bushee, Glenn' Cc: Dan Connolly Subject: RE: More info for the GPC BC Search Glenn, They want data for every element in the search when available. The financial encounter is based on the encounter number attached to the tumor registry observance. I believe this is the tumor number (copying Dan to verify). Data update through 10/28/2014 is great. It covers the desired BC date range. -----Original Message----- From: Bushee, Glenn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:46 PM To: Tamara McMahon Subject: Re: More info for the GPC BC Search Tamara, the financial encounter constraint is a difficult one on our end. We've pulled data from 3 different NAACCR databases and used the fabricated visit (EPIC Zid preceded by 'fabricated_') for all of the entries. So, this would mean that our query is currently taking any SEER Site: Breast, excluding any match to the Class of Case >= 30. Note that this exclusion reduces our data set size by about a 150 patient count. For the extracted data, is it that you just want the information associated with the SEER Site: Breast entry? So, the next question is then, how are you determining a Financial Encounter from the underlying NAACCR data? I hope that this all makes sense. We received a one-time data dump that was through approximately 10/28/2014. We are going to be working through a process to obtain incremental changes on either a monthly or quarterly basis, but this has not been finalized yet. - Glenn Medical Informatics Senior Analyst CTSI – Clinical & Translational Science Institute [email protected] (414) 805-7239 From: Tamara McMahon <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 at 2:16 PM To: "'[email protected]<mailto:'[email protected]>'" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Chrischilles, Elizabeth A ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "McDowell, Bradley D ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Theresa Shireman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jianghua He <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: More info for the GPC BC Search I would like to clarify a few items in the previous email regarding GPC Breast Cancer search. I’ve attached an updated screenshot highlighting items listed below. 1. The first 3 groups should be limited to the same financial encounter. When I printed the query, the printout indicated treat independently which is incorrect. Please refer to the correct query (attached). 2. Group 2 excludes non-analytic class of case. Analytic class of case is less than 30, so please exclude any class of case greater or equal to 30 to remove the non-analytics. The query print I am attaching shows the non-analytic class of case codes available at KUMC. You may see different numbers at your institution. For example, KUMC is missing #35, #37 and #39. Your institutions may include these but miss some of those listed in the KUMC search. The important thing is to exclude any class of case coded greater than or equal to 30. 3. I’ve added 0610 Class of Case to group 3, so the team can verify non-analytics were removed. 4. I pulled the EMR data types into the 4th group since they cannot be linked via financial encounter at KUMC. Please email me and let me know the date of your last data refresh and what kind of lag exists for your tumor registry. Due to the close date range (identified 5/1/2013-5/1/2014) the BC team would like to verify the availability of this data. At KUMC we refresh monthly with a lag of 6 months at the registrar, so our tumor registry is only available through 6/30/2014. Reminder: please include a de-identified patient number in your data set. Dan is working on ticket #205<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/205>: an interim data builder for this search. I will send an update on how to pull/package the data from the search once I get an update from him. Tamara McMahon Clinical Informatics Coordinator Division of Medical Informatics University of Kansas Medical Center 913-945-7470 Request a training or consultation<https://redcap.kumc.edu/surveys/?s=qYxMmb> _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
