Questions and answers #426
New cases to NordDRG Forum
|Initiator:||Nordic Casemix Centre||Target year:|
|MDC:||Owner / responsible:|
|Target Grouper:||Not applicable||Old forum status:|
The Files selection now includes the prototypes for NordDRG forum cases and Technical changes
Case for NordDRG Forum - prototype of text
This Word doucment contains a typical content of case with formating for Redmine editor. The Bold and italics parts are shown in the Word-document although they are not visible during editing in Redmine.
If you have a case with description longer that a few rows, it is easier to edit the case in Word and copy the whole text (with [Ctrl][C]) and paste it to Redmine editing window for NordDRG Forum (with [Ctrl][V]).
Technical changes - prototype Excel sheet
The sheet contains a description of the Excel book on its first sheet.
The other sheets are those that may be changed in a proposal.
The sheet 'dg' corresponds to 'dg1' of definition tables, 'dg0' is an automatically created table that cannot be changed manually. Similarly the sheet 'proc' corresponds to 'proc1' and 'proc0' cannot be changed. The sheet 'rtc' is not supposed to be changed in the maintenance process and is therefore not included.
The sheet NCSP+ and ICD+ should if necessary and possible contain the codes that are affected by the proposal (marked '---') and not just the codes that are inactivated ('OUT') or created ('IN') for the case.
The sheet 'testdata' should contain individual cases where DRG assignment is expected to be changed based on the proposal. This is usefull for the testing of the grouper and the the cases will be included in the common test data set.
Unnecesary sheets (with no content) should be deleted before you save your case.
If you save your case to this Forum, please use the case number the system indicates at appropriate places and name your case with that number and necessary other identification. If you do not use the Forum directly, the Casemix Centre will add case number information to the case.
For example: Case #394 .......
Updated 30.8.2016 MV
#2 Updated by Ralph Dahlgren almost 5 years ago
2015-04-07 Comments by NPK Sweden:
Before these templates are implemented and being used they should be discussed by the Expert network. This due to the differences between the tamplates and the present DBF-files. Until then we will use the old templates.
#3 Updated by Mats Fernström almost 4 years ago
- File Comparison of table names.xlsx added
- File SWE comments on Technical changes - prototype Excel sheet.xlsx added
Mats Fernström, NPK, Sweden 2016-03-03
Prototype of text:
We understand that the template is intended as an aid in order to remember the different points “Problem”, “Analysis” and “Suggestion” (with subtitles) when we add a new item directly on the Forum, but it should also be possible to mail the document to the Centre and then there must be further information fields in the template, such as Target version, Case type, MDC, Target Grouper, Target year etc. like in the old template. There should also be a field for national ID for each issue on the Forum.
We suppose that this template is meant for new cases but there should also be a template for comments on existing cases. It could be a copy of the template for new cases but without unnecessary fields.
Prototype Excel sheet:
There are more explanations in this template compared to the previous one and that is good, but we are still not satisfied.
To start with, the following tables are missing: Dg0, Proc0, MDC, Rtc, ICD, NCSP and Test rule.
Furthermore, the names of the tables should be uniform in the NordDRG system. We have compared the table names in the DBF set and the Excel set of definition tables with the tables in this template and they differ a lot (see the Excel file “Comparison of table names”). The difference is not a big problem when we deal with the tables manually but it can lead to errors when we do programmatic (computerized) comparisons.
The most annoying thing with the new template is that the column positions in most of the tables are not consistent with how it looks in the definition tables in the Excel format. The natural way to specify which rows to be deleted (to be marked with "OUT" in the template) is to copy them from the current definition table, and then paste them into the template. This is impossible to do, it will be wrong, if the columns have other positions in the template. One must instead copy and paste the individual cells separately, which takes much, much, much longer time and it also increases the risk for errors. We cannot work in this way. In the Excel file “SWE comments on Technical changes - prototype Excel sheet” we have marked the inconsistencies in each table.