#155: correlating observations with encounters ----------------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: lv | Owner: dconnolly Type: design-issue | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: data-domains3 Component: data-stds | Resolution: Keywords: data-quality cdm-etl | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by lv): Replying to [comment:24 dconnolly]: > Interesting approach from MCRF: > > > ... 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. > - [http://listserv.kumc.edu/pipermail/gpc-dev/2016q2/002935.html CDM v3 procedures/encounter EPIC installations] discussion in gpc-dev Just to clarify, "Place of Service" is Marshfield terminology. Local codes are mapped to Visit Type Concept Id (OMOP data model) and Enc_Type (PCORnet data model) of AV, ED, IP, OA, OT, etc. We talked about this at Hackathon2. It doesn't work for all data. For the tumor registry, we use Accession Number and Sequence Number to define unique encounters. -- Ticket URL: <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/155#comment:25> gpc-informatics <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/> Greater Plains Network - Informatics _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev