Update to Sanford Health clinical collection metrics

[erincschwartz]

As discussed, Table 1.4 could us some updates. Please make the following updates:

1) Update the title to: Table 1.4: Baseline Clinical Biospecimen Collections in the Past 30 Days at Sanford Health by Clinic Location 2) Add footnote: This table reflects Clincal Collections in the past 30 days; the total number of Clinical Collections at Sanford Health is # 3) Remove Total Clinical Collections column

Is it also possible to add regional headers to this table (Bismarack, Bemidji, Fargo, Sioux Falls) and list clinics under appropriate header? Maddi will update the crosswalk document to indicate which region each clinic falls under. She is also planning to re-name some of the clinic locations as the current location labels not informative to their Connect team.

Maddi would also like another table, would be Table 1.5 Top Baseline Clinical Collection Locations at Sanford Health by Region

This table would list the current top 10 clincial collection locations in each region (Bismarack, Bemidji, Fargo, Sioux Falls); columns would be Collection Location and Total Clinical Collections.

Happy to discuss if needed.

[KELSEYDOWLING7]

If we are already going to do a total count by region for the new Table 1.5, I would strongly prefer not putting the region labels in Table 1.4. It's doable but the code is already quite complex, and would be more so with the constantly rotating site locations listed and having to map their appropriate region. I think the information would already be captured well in Table 1.5, but if they really want it I can look into it after the crosswalk is redelivered.

Here is Table 1.4 without the region labels. Any update to the Site location names will automatically be applied once the new crosswalk is sent over:

[erincschwartz]

@KELSEYDOWLING7, just want to point out that the top 10 locations per region in the proposed Table 1.5 will also rotate based on volume of collections. Do you think this will be too complex to list by region? Also, Table 1.5 won't have a total count by region, it will just have the totals for the 10 clinical collections locations with the highest volume within each region. But, you bring up a good point, could we add a footnote to Table 1.5 with the total for each region, like the footnote for total collections in Table 1.4?

[KELSEYDOWLING7]

Ah, ok that's a good point too. The footnote I can definitely do. The rest will be easier to decide on or further discuss once I have the update crosswalk to play around with

[erincschwartz]

I will pass the crosswalk along as soon as Maddi sends it over.

[erincschwartz]

@KELSEYDOWLING7 Can you look at the footnote for Table 1.4? It seems low compared to the number of collections listed in Table 1.9. They have not had any clincial collection re-draws that I am aware of.

[KELSEYDOWLING7]

@erincschwartz You're right. I've updated the code for the footnote. Do you need me to rerun the report to fix that table?

[erincschwartz]

@KELSEYDOWLING7 thank you for looking into this. I already let Sanford know that the code was being looked at. No need to re-run the report. I will check it next Monday.

[KELSEYDOWLING7]

@erincschwartz Just checking in on this issue. Is Maddi still working on the crosswalk?

[erincschwartz]

@KELSEYDOWLING7, Yes, we are still waiting on Maddi to send an updated crosswalk. She is out of office this week but I sent her an email to get an updated timeline.