[Logo] NEMSIS TAC v3 Forums
  [Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent Topics   [Hottest Topics] Hottest Topics   [Groups] Back to home page 
[Login] Login 
Prioritize v3 Elements based on Decision Making (national and all elements)
Forum Index » v3.5.0 - Other Revision Comments
Author Message

Joined: 06/26/2014 16:21:40
Messages: 88

From New Hampshire State Data Advisory Committee (and/or from the DMC) (July 1, 2013) – recommended changes to the v3 dataset.

Recommendations for priority of decision making in all elements-especially national elements:

Keep in mind that in a hospital, there are 6-7 different people collecting this information during the patient encounter. In EMS, there is only one person, and they need to take care of the patient too.

Priority utility of elements, especially collecting elements by the benefit or effects on the following groups starting at the highest priority and moving down:

1. Patient care-is the element good patient documentation to support patient care?

2. EMS Providers-Is there some values to the EMS provider or will this be a time burden to require this elements with little return to the provider/service or state?

3. EMS Services-Is there some value to EMS services?

4. State Systems-Is there value to a state system?

5. National System-is there some greater level value nationally that doesn’t meet any of the criteria above that something should be a national element?

6. Special Interest Groups- we should NEVER be collecting information that doesn’t meet the state level criteria or above unless the special interest group is giving EMS A LOT of money, and that benefit can be communicated all the way down to the provider level.

7. Researchers-there should be no national elements or any elements that should be included or required for the benefit of a small handful of researchers. It might be Ok to consult with these folks to see if putting something a certain way will be easier to analyze at NEMSIS, but you should always then go be to the service and state level and ask if doing it that way will be effective or practical. If you ask for something that is too hard to get or can’t be understood by the average EMS provider-you are wasting everyone’s time because the data collected will end up being junk.

Joined: 07/17/2013 10:24:15
Messages: 40

We are not sure we understand the exact proposal for change here? Are you requesting to re-define all of the elements in the data set around this priority list?

Joined: 12/19/2013 13:32:41
Messages: 28

We do not understand this request, either.

-Dan V (ImageTrend)

Joined: 03/28/2012 09:46:17
Messages: 251

Posted at the request of Martin Lansdale (Oklahoma State Department of Health-Emergency Systems):

Although I agree that the end user should always be taken into account with any decision about what to require for a dataset, you have also have to ask the question “why are we collecting this data?”. The answer: research. If you only collect a minimal dataset (which is what the proposal suggested) then the analysis is very limited and not useful. What is more frustrating? Asking a medic to answer a few extra questions (by the way, it’s the job of the state data manager to help them understand what and why you are asking for an element) or having a medic enter data and get absolutely nothing in return? You have to balance research and the end user but in the end, the data is collected for research purposes and should be 1 or 2 on your list. If not, then there is no point in collecting the data. In my experience, if you correctly convey to the end user what and why you are collecting the data then they are willing to give you the data. Also, quite a few of the NEMSIS elements are already collected for billing purposes, it’s a matter of getting it to the state.
Forum Index » v3.5.0 - Other Revision Comments
Go to:   
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © JForum Team