For now, as long as we have an explanation for "deviating" from expectations, I'm more concerned with building out additional CDM tables to prepare for the second round of Data Characterization queries (this summer)... rather than addressing the Encounter domain.
Others may disagree on that approach? Thanks, Laurel From: Debbie Yoshihara [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 11:26 AM To: Verhagen, Laurel A; '[email protected]' Subject: Re: CDM v3 procedures/encounter EPIC installations Thanks Laurel for your insight! Sounds like leaving things as they are and explaining things in the ADD is the way to go. ---- Debbie Yoshihara ________________________________ From: Verhagen, Laurel A <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 11:09:57 AM To: Debbie Yoshihara; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: CDM v3 procedures/encounter EPIC installations Hi Debbie, Marshfield isn't an Epic site, but I can tell you that our approach from the beginning was to artificially create encounters based on patient, date, provider, place of service - rather than trying to pull events, which we've found on other projects/network collaborations to generate noise. We've discussed this with the coordinating center as part of our Data Characterization review. Their direction is that for the CDM every encounter should be a patient-provider interaction. Our numbers were inflated by things like demographics records. Our ratio of procedures to encounters was further thrown off by our Dental records, because our CDT dental procedures don't count for their analysis. >From what I've seen, encounter definition is one of the items that requires >guidance/recommendations at the DRN OC/coordinating center level. For that >reason, we haven't made any adjustments yet (but we are open to doing so). I'm not sure if this is helpful, but it's our experience... If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Laurel From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Debbie Yoshihara Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 10:59 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: CDM v3 procedures/encounter EPIC installations Hi, We've noticed that we have a lot of procedures but they are not tied to any encounters in EPIC. So our PX/Encounter is very low. What did other GPC sites do about this? 1) Leave it as it is 2) Tie procedures to encounters using dates 3) Other We were going to leave it as it is, but if other sites had some way of associating procedures to encounters, we'd like to try it. Thanks, Debbie Yoshihara ________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
