Bug report: Frequency of vital signs

Jan 4, ’12 9:56 PM

Currently the DVR thinks that if the ‘Frequency of vital signs’ drop down is blank then this means the frequency is less than 12 hourly. This causes a few DVR checks to fire incorrectly. Please ignore DVR checks involving this for now.I will post when the bug is fixed.

Comments (0)

Aaahhh … why is my DVR report so long?

Jan 3, ’12 6:31 PM

First of all we are very pleased with the data quality for (SPOT)light. We expect around 2-3 errors per record (on average) and the average is around 0.5 (or 1 every two records). However, if you have a large number of records then this still translates into a large number of checks and a lot of work.

So to justify this then here are a few of the most common DVR checks with an explanation to justify why we are asking for your help:

  • Unusual spelling for first names: We will be unable to match to death certificates with the Office of National Statistics if the name spelling is odd. We expect some false positives with unusual names but the system should learn as we go along. Unfortunately a decent number of records across the entire study have first and last name reversed, and so despite the false positives this is still an important check.
  • Follow-up or recommended level of care missing. We’ll use this to classify patients  - especially important is the case where treatment limits are in place and we don’t want to consider that patient’s subsequent death outside of ICU as unanticipated.

I’ll add other explanations as they come up.

Please do get in contact if you have any queries.

Steve

Comments (0)

Happy New Year … and a DVR explanation

Jan 3, ’12 6:25 PM

Q: Why are you asking me to confirm a blank field?

A: Nearly all the fields on the web site have a ‘Not available’ checkbox attached, and when you have checked this then we will not be asking you for further information. However, if the field is blank and the box is unchecked then we need to be sure that form is complete and the data is truly unavailable.

The only other time we will ask is where there are also ‘drop-down’ lists since these do not have paired ‘Not available’ checkboxes.  The only way that we can be sure that the data in these fields is truly unavailable is by asking you to confirm this.

Comments (0)

New icons on the web portal

Dec 6, ’11 8:12 PM

You will see a two clipboard icons on the web portal. These buttons are not yet ready for public release but we thought we would let you know what they will do in advance.

NewImage

The clipboard with the question mark is the button to produce your hospital’s Data Validation Report.

The clipboard with the exclamation mark should list all patients not meeting the minimum data set standard.

 

Comments (0)

Heads’n'Tails matching

Oct 28, ’11 4:36 AM

So the new Heads’n'Tails matching is ready. Hooray! I will be sending out your individual site sheets over the next few days. Please also have a look at the guidance notes.

Comments (0)

Apologies

Oct 7, ’11 3:48 PM

I know you are waiting for the next Heads’n'Tails report which I had hoped to be able to produce within a month of the first which would have been mid-September. We are now at the beginning of October, and I am still working on this. It has not been as simple as re-running the matching process because we have been trying to incorporate a number of improvements.

Most importantly, you should be able in the next report to see the issues month by month. We think this will help identify months which are close to being complete.  Missing matches from these months can then be prioritised so that as much of your data is ready for analysis as soon as possible.

Thanks for being patient.

The next report is coming soon …

 

Comments (0)

(SPOT)light Prizes

Sep 28, ’11 10:17 AM

We’re giving away a prize for every thousandth patient entered on the (SPOT)light web portal, so congratulations to the following people who entered these milestone patients:

1st patient - Nuno Pinto, Medway Maritime Hospital 

1,000 – Thomas Hughes, Colchester General Hospital 

2,000 – Ben Booth, Bradford Royal Infirmary

3,000 – Angela Peskett, Maidstone Hospital

4,000 – Andy Hall, Torbay Hospital

5,000 – Harnita Chohan, Freeman Hospital

6,000 – Ken Inweregbu, Barnsley Hospital

7,000 – Jennifer Ricketts, Wycombe Hospital

8,000 – Parizade Raymode, Kettering General Hospital

9,000 – Ed Ekanem, Queen Elizabeth II Hospital

10,000 – Isobel Bird, Whipps Cross University Hospital

11,000 – Yvette Brigdale, The Royal Blackburn Hospital

12,000 – Michele Bianchi, Whittington Hospital

13,000 – Christine Carroll, Yeovil District Hospital

14,000 – Lesley Hawkins, Southampton General Hospital

15,000 – Alison Dinning, Queen’s Medical Centre

16,000 – Chris Smalley, Arrowe Park

17,000 – Samuel Magombe, North Middlesex Hospital

18,000 – Jennifer Plume, Diana Princess of Wales

19,000 – Tracey Robson, Sunderland Royal Hospital

20,000 – Ronald Jones, New Cross Hospital

21,000 – Clare Jackson, Stafford Hospital

22,000 – Neil Smith, Hull Royal Infirmary

23,000 – Carly Claxton, Pilgrim Hospital

24,000 – Sally Humphreys, West Suffolk Hospital

25,000 – Helen Robertson, Countess of Chester Hospital

Please keep entering patients on the portal and maybe you could win a prize!

Comments (0)

The (SPOT)light Top Ten – July

Sep 9, ’11 10:26 AM

Every month we upload all records to the NIHR accruals system that contain the minimum essential data, and you will all have now received emails letting you know how many of your records meet these criteria. So to say a big thank you to those sites with the highest percentage of records meeting this standard then here is the (SPOT)light top ten for July!

  1. Kettering General Hospital
  2. Medway Maritime Hospital
  3. Ulster Hospital
  4. Tameside General Hospital
  5. Royal Preston Hospital
  6. Colchester General Hospital
  7. The Royal Blackburn Hospital
  8. Bradford Royal Infirmary
  9. Southend University Hospital
  10. Craigavnon Hospital

Watch this space for the August Top 10!

Comments (0)

Website upgrade

Aug 12, ’11 5:18 PM

Next Tuesday we will be upgrading the (SPOT)light website. The main change is that your records will be sorted by month. The default view when you click through will show you ALL patients from the last 30 days. If you want to look further back then hover over the ‘Last 30 days’ and you will be able to choose the month your wish to view.

NewImage

NewImage

Just as before you can similarly select whether you are looking at ‘Open’ visits (those where the patient was neither discharged from follow-up nor admitted to ICU) via the same approach.

Please also note that long lists of patients are now broken up by pages using the icons in the top right.

NewImage

 

Comments (4)

What if the baseline CXR is clear?

Aug 2, ’11 10:43 AM

Question: With the current screening regime, and the screening out if the CXR result is reported clear, you are quite likely to miss a large part of the viral pneumonias I would think. It may be conceivable that a patient indeed is quite unwell, but nonetheless is deemed to have a viral pathology, so antibiotics are stopped. So while he may need respiratory support, and be a candidate for the study in the spirit of the trial, we would have to filter him/her out. Was this intentional and pre-planned or just unavoidable?

Answer: So a clear CXR is not an exclusion (just something we might stratify differently). The CXR can be used to rule out a case if a different diagnosis is confirmed but to use a cliché (sorry) “absence of evidence isn’t …”. However, this leaves us with the sticky problem of exacerbation of COPD. To distinguish an exacerbation of COPD from pneumonia then it will be necessary for the CXR to have pneumonic changes. Sorry this is not 100% consistent but I think it gets at the spirit of the study.

 

Comments (0)