harleytuck wrote on Thursday, December 17, 2015:
Hi Brady-
Thanks for the tips. Yes I was using the "all amc’s’; will go with stage 2 hereafter. Will repeat 4.x - 5.x of the med list measure to see that things are incrementing properly
Also will use the MU site that Tony recently updated instead of that Up For Grabs site you posted a few pages back.
More news as it happens- HT
bradymiller wrote on Thursday, December 17, 2015:
Hi Harley,
That up for grabs demo is outdated. All the code is now in the official development codebase.
-brady
harleytuck wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
Hi Brady-
Yes, I selected stage 1 rules and redid 4.x and 5.x and they performed as hoped.
harleytuck wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
Back to 5-prob list.
Redid test cases 4.x - 5.x with newly renamed people, using same reporting period/ admin for enc prov and stage 1 rules.
Good news: They incremented the right values just fine.
Started on 4-problem list.
Bad news: 1st 2 test cases didn’t increment like they should.
In both cases I added a new encounter with DOS in the reporting period,
In 1.1 I added a medical problem to the issues panel in the encounter.
This did ++ the total and denom but not the numerator. Even went back to the pt and in the issues screen I selected an occurance value from the dropdown in the problem. No change, no joy.
In 1.2 I saved the new encounter then got into the issues screen and added a probem. ++ total and denom but not the num. Bailed out of that pt, came back, deleted the issue, added another. No change.
bradymiller wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
I just committed a fix to the codebase to remove the ‘All Automated Measure Calculations (AMC)’ option.
-brady
OpenEMR
bradymiller wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
Hi Harley,
This is an issue with when you are recording the medical problem (or when stating no medical problems); the “recording” is the actual date/time you made the entry. And you are then doing a report on data from past, so you won’t capture it. That rule will be positive as long as the “recording” is before the end report date(the logic here is that it doesn’t make sense for it to be postive if the action happened after the actual end report date; let me know if this logic needs to be changed; just seems odd to count something that happened after the end report date/time, though).
So, to do rule 1.1 correctly, would have the end report date/time be the current date/time since you did the “recording” several seconds before that.
And, to do rule 1.2 correctly, would have the start report date/time be after when you did the “recording”.
But above seems that it would get super confusing(and possibly impossible)? Perhaps should just count “recordings” also after the end report date/time? Let me know if you want to do this; it would be a very easy coding change for me to make.
-brady
OpenEMR
harleytuck wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
Hi Brady-
I can manage it as it is, I just hadn’t stretched my mind to encompass
making a reporting period as short as a few seconds or minute. Will give
that a go and let you know if I can’t make it work.
Thanks for the clarification- HT
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Brady Miller bradymiller@users.sf.net
wrote:
Hi Harley,
This is an issue with when you are recording the medical problem (or when
stating no medical problems); the “recording” is the actual date/time you
made the entry. And you are then doing a report on data from past, so you
won’t capture it. That rule will be positive as long as the “recording” is
before the end report date(the logic here is that it doesn’t make sense for
it to be postive if the action happened after the actual end report date;
let me know if this logic needs to be changed; just seems odd to count
something that happened after the end report date/time, though).So, to do rule 1.1 correctly, would have the end report date/time be the
current date/time since you did the “recording” several seconds before that.
And, to do rule 1.2 correctly, would have the start report date/time be
after when you did the “recording”.But above seems that it would get super confusing(and possibly
impossible)? Perhaps should just count “recordings” also after the end
report date/time? Let me know if you want to do this; it would be a very
easy coding change for me to make.-brady
OpenEMR http://www.open-emr.org/MU2 Progress
https://sourceforge.net/p/openemr/discussion/oemr_501c3/thread/e0c8ffd8/?limit=25&page=8#e58cSent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
https://sourceforge.net/p/openemr/discussion/oemr_501c3/To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
–
MI-Squared Customer Support main line: 866-735-0897
htuck [at] mi-squared: 713-574-6714
Please be aware that e-mail communication can be intercepted in
transmission or misdirected. Please consider communicating any sensitive
information by telephone. The information contained in this message may be
privileged and confidential. If you are NOT the intended recipient, please
notify the sender immediately with a copy to hipaa-security@mrsb-ltd.com and
destroy this message.
–
Please be aware that e-mail communication can be intercepted in
transmission or misdirected. Please consider communicating any sensitive
information by telephone. The information contained in this message may be
privileged and confidential. If you are NOT the intended recipient, please
notify the sender immediately with a copy to hipaa-security@mrsb-ltd.com and
destroy this message.
harleytuck wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
Hi Brady-
Ok, 1.1 works as you described, since you can record the problem in the encounter in the report period.
1.2 however, requires an enc in the report period but the recording of the prob outside.
so- tried this:
1 make new pt and record prob
2 save/ clear pt/
3 note time
4 pull up pt again and add new enc.
5 save enc/ clear pt
6 make report period from after noted time to now.
No Joy.
Will try another measure for a while.
sunsetsystems wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
I’ll have a bit of time this weekend. Anything I need to do? If yes, please be specific as I have not been following this closely.
harleytuck wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
Hi Rod-
That’s great-- Brady thought you could look at the problems in the lab code; I included screenshots and descriptions in the original posting above, that all these replies derive from. Feel free to ask if my descriptions aren’t clear, but the problems are mostly that specific data don’t appear where they’re supposed to.
We know the hl7 file imports but the data doesn’t make it to the display. And, re-reading my post just now, I should clarify that the juror document is referring to Janet’s rejected specmen reasons.
-HT
sunsetsystems wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
Harley, I’m not seeing the problem with missing comments. They do show for hepatitis result code 48159-8. The Juror Documents do not seem to have any comments for other tests. Please check this?
Rod
harleytuck wrote on Friday, December 18, 2015:
Hi Rod-
I don’t find a hep result code 48159-8.
I’m looking in the current MU test site,
https://openemr.mi-squared.com/mu2/openemr/
(u: admin/ p: demo)
at the 3 pts Janet, Peggy and William, and that’s where the screenshots came from.
I just now uploaded the GU hl7 files there and they should be visible in Procedures/ Electronic Reports.
Keep in mind: I am not a dev; I don’t know git or the intricacies of the OpenEMR repos, or where Brady thought you would be coding then eventually moving the mods to the MU site.
Rgds- Harley
bradymiller wrote on Saturday, December 19, 2015:
Hi Harley,
Ensure that your testing site is using most recent codebase (it sounds like Tony is responsible for that). Both myself and Rod place changes in OpenEMR’s official development codebase, which is also where we work and test from (it must be Tony whom is populating your testing site with the most recent codebase).
-brady
tmccormi wrote on Saturday, December 19, 2015:
it was last updated on Monday. I’m updating it again now with the most current. There were no recent lab changes to my knowledge
Current set at:
commit 6c7e34cdde032979adb18fc7acc6c5dcae216942
Author: bradymiller bradymiller@users.sourceforge.net
Date: Fri Dec 18 02:01:37 2015 -0800
bug fix in AMC reportsunsetsystems wrote on Saturday, December 19, 2015:
Harley, see attached screenshot. You probably dont see 48159-8 because the “-8” is truncated by the too-narrow column. That’s another glitch.
Rod
sunsetsystems wrote on Saturday, December 19, 2015:
Also if you click on the date column in Electronc Reports for Peggy Smirnoff’s HepABC Panel, you’ll see the comment at the bottom of the results window that is presented. I think that’s teh best way to view results.
Rod
harleytuck wrote on Saturday, December 19, 2015:
Hi Rod-
Yes, those comments in the ‘electronic reports’ are the easiest to access and should suffice but it’s good to know where they are in the lab widget also.
So that basically leaves Janet’s rejection reasons and the units. Which are almost visible in the pt’s ‘pendng review’ screen but are not legible, being obscured by the narrow column width. And of course not at all in the pt’s ‘labs’ widget.
This is cool, thanks-HT
harleytuck wrote on Saturday, December 19, 2015:
Hi Brady et al-
I know you’re doing CDS now but I just wanted to leave a quick note of my recent AMC adventures.
I see the logic of your 1.1 description, as long as the start date/ time is before the encounter and the recording of the problem. But as you describe the 1.2 test case, it’s missing the fact that it needs an encounter within the report period. If you start the report after the encounter, it won’t be included as it should.
I’ve been beating up 6-med allergy list and getting the same discrepancies as 4-problem list.
In test cases 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 they all should have ++ the total, the numerator and the denom. Only the total was incremented. 1.3 and 1.5 were only supposed to ++ the total and that’s all they did.
For the record:
1.1 and 1.4
noted time1.
entered new pt; made encounter; save/ clear pt
bring back pt; add reported item (or recorded NONE); clear pt
note time2
run report from time 1-2
1.2:
noted time1.
entered new pt; made encounter; save/ clear pt
note time2
bring back pt; add reported item; clear pt
run report from time 1-2
Suggestions?
bradymiller wrote on Saturday, December 19, 2015:
Hi Harley,
I am going to remove the date filter for the recording of the problem/med/allergy (according to the wording of those items, the date shouldn’t be accounted for). This will fix those items. Hopefully get this into the codebase tonight.
-brady
OpenEMR