Nate, I am going to copy GPC-DEV on this because it appears that it is an issue that affects many of us. I had planned to respond to sites on the ETLADD individually, but as you point out there are differences across GPC sites as to interpretation of the intent of the Encounter_type tables for Diagnoses and Procedures section of the Data summary. When I realized that it was a more general issue I sent a query to DSSNI asking for clarification. It appears from the response I got this afternoon that they do not yet understand the ambiguity in the worksheet and I have expanded on my question.
More to follow, hopefully tomorrow Jim From: Apathy,Nate [nate.apa...@cerner.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:22 PM To: Campbell, James R; Fothergill, Rita, R Subject: RE: ETLADD for Childrens Memorial Hi Jim, Looking at the other ADD’s on the PCORNet site, it looks like there ended up being significant confusion as to what those breakdowns represented for the Diagnosis and Procedure sections of the Data Summary tab. If you look at Wisconsin’s, they took it to mean # of unique patients with both an encounter of that type and a diagnosis on that encounter (screenshot below). In the DX_TYPE counts, their counts are for unique patients rather than encounters with that DX type or total counts of diagnoses observations by type. It appears (based on percentages) that the other sites also interpreted how CMH’s document looks, or they got the same results based on KU’s ETL code. Nathan Graham’s code looks like it counts unique diagnosis-containing encounters by type, since the 88m with No Information is far greater than their total unique patient count. These disagreements seem worthy of at least a GPC-DEV email to poll the group on how they arrived at these interpretations. What do you think? [cid:image001.png@01CFCD13.68ABDC80] Nate Apathy Program Manager, Cerner Research From: Apathy,Nate Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:45 PM To: 'Campbell, James R'; Fothergill, Rita, R Subject: RE: ETLADD for Childrens Memorial Hi Jim, I definitely interpreted those statistics differently, you’re correct. I took that to mean, of your encounters with diagnoses recorded, what percentage of them fall across the various encounter types. But your interpretation makes more sense in terms of getting an idea of data completeness. I can update those numbers in the next few days. For your second question, you’re correct, there isn’t any professional billing data yet in CMH’s i2b2 database. That data will be included in the next phase of the project. Thanks for taking a look! Nate Apathy Program Manager, Cerner Research From: Campbell, James R [mailto:campb...@unmc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:22 AM To: Apathy,Nate; Fothergill, Rita, R Subject: ETLADD for Childrens Memorial Nate Thanks for forwarding the ETLADD for Childrens. Everything looked pretty good but I was interpreting some of the data summary stats a bit differently. Worksheet Data summary.Diagnoses: I am assuming the encounter summary ratio is the fraction of that encounter type with diagnosis data; therefore your stats there should be much higher. For example, if 35393 IP enc/43127 have ICD9CM diagnoses; the IP % = 82% The same would hold for procedure counts It appears that you have no ambulatory professional billing data, is that correct and not just an oversight? Jim 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. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any included attachments are from Cerner Corporation and are intended only for the addressee. The information contained in this message is confidential and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or you may call Cerner's corporate offices in Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A at (+1) (816)221-1024.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
