wk3 apr_epic story_1 - R21 days to EBP completion

[anthonycpichardo]

Check off requirements to verify progress through feature_tracker.

• [ ] 1. DEFINE in work_breakdown

  • [ ] a. what & why - written definitions of requirements in a numbered checklist

  • [x] 1. There shall exist a crosswalk between Aim 1a and Aim 1b rule definitions and the R21 data scripts to better facilitate the relationship between what is documented and where it lives in the code.

  • [x] 2. There shall be validation and if needed correction of the data used for the R21 P charts

  • [ ] 3. There shall be an xbar-S chart generated from the final comparator file for the R21

  • [x] 4. Research related R and SQL code shall be hosted on mtl_code Github to allow for more effective source control as well as a more efficient way to document resources

  • [ ] b. date & who - Verified requirement definitions an existing team meeting.

• [ ] 2. DESIGN in operations_to_do and research_to_do
  • [ ] a. what & why - MVP of design of requirements in a algorithm map, wireframes or design on the master_feature_card.

  • [ ] b. date & who - Verified design asynchronously or an existing team meeting.

• [ ] 3. DEVELOP in under_development - "frozen"

• [ ] 4. TEST in functional_test
  • [ ] a. what & why - TEST requirements using testing_checklist on the master_feature_card.

  • [ ] b. date & who - Verified via TEST asynchronously or an existing team meeting.

• [ ] 5. PROD in done
  • [ ] a. what & why - DOCUMENT feature using document_tracker for the 5 D's.
  • [ ] b. date & who - DELEGATE
  • [ ] describe_learners [Jenn & Rita]
  • [ ] detail_facilitators [Jane & Debbie]
  • [ ] document_team [Anthony]
  • [ ] disseminate_scientists_va [Anthony]

  • [ ] depend_products [hq & ees]

• [ ] 6. closed - fully documented, trained and ready for the next release.

[lzim]

@anthonycpichardo @anazariz

Do we think the title of this card could better reflect what this is? It is hard to discern with the vagueness of the title. When combined with the wide-array of the details in the issues, I cannot define what this is clearly.

[anthonycpichardo]

@lzim @staceypark can we verify the requirements piece outlined above? Thanks! =)

[lzim]

@lzim @staceypark can we verify the requirements piece outlined above? Thanks! =)

Yes, I think that the requirements at the top comment are accurate, but may not be fully complete.

I believe another task is to review the DART and ORD for the R21 to make sure that is all working properly too. Let's discuss at tomorrow's quant_workgroup.

@anthonycpichardo Will you please add #1281 to the agenda tomorrow?

FYI: @anazariz

[anthonycpichardo]

@lzim @staceypark can we verify the requirements piece outlined above? Thanks! =)

Yes, I think that the requirements at the top comment are accurate, but may not be fully complete.

I believe another task is to review the DART and ORD for the R21 to make sure that is all working properly too. Let's discuss at tomorrow's quant_workgroup.

@anthonycpichardo Will you please add #1281 to the agenda tomorrow?

FYI: @anazariz

@lzim Sounds good, I will add it to the agenda

[staceypark]

@anthonycpichardo reminder - We don't want milestone & epic data in master Feature cards or master Document cards, as these will create fake inflation in the ZenHub reports. I took it off for this one. Could you do the same for #1192.

[lzim]

quant_workgroup: @anazariz @anthonycpichardo @dkngenda @staceypark @lijenn

Let's keep track of who exactly is doing what across what appear to be MANY related issue tasks:

• Can we come on Monday with updated due_date that follow our Team PSD week 3 MVP user testing schedule?
• Can we be sure that the dependencies are tracked accordingly?
• Can we make sure that right MVP assignees (i.e., owners of that feature) and that the right MVP reviewers (i.e., users who need to test the MVPs asynchronously or at existing meetings) are identified using the 9 clicks on the right for ZenHub tracking?

1439 STTM

1422 lzim/research

1440 .r, .md, .sql Style Guides

1429 Split Pipeline Data Lineage

1401 GH actions w/Markdown Lint

_See quant_workgroup later today:_ We'll meet on Teams to pick up in the the same discussion context.

• I'd like to start with spending no more than 5 minutes reviewing the slides we covered of the STMM prototype with the documentation in Teams. I can do this.
• Then, I'd like Ash to keep going for ~20 minutes for that video.
• I'd really like to try to get through 2 videos during the hour we've scheduled.

We'll need to use Zoom to record. There an integration hurdle:

• Zoom will automatically output the notes we take in the chat.
• But, this will pull the conversation out of context, which we can track on Teams for the sprint.

Recommendations?

[lzim]

Discussed today re: #1441 #1442 #1443 @jamesmrollins

[anthonycpichardo]

Remaining item to generate xbar charts

@dkngenda

[lzim]

@staceypark @anthonycpichardo @anazariz @dkngenda

I’m having a hard time tracking how this issue #1281 fits w/ #674 #675 & research#22 research#25 research#29

Can you all help? 👩🏻‍💻 I’m hoping we can get these all clearly aligned today to get over the hump on these.

[lzim]

@anthonycpichardo @dkngenda @anazariz @staceypark

Let's discuss this at 8AM Workgroup Leads on Monday. I've indicated this as a blocker for R21 Tests of Aims and Findings due wk4 feb_epic since I've identified an easy alternative to what we did before that meets the objectives of the grant.

• [ ] **R21 Need SQL calculation of a column for number of days from EBP initiation encounter to EBP completion encounter during
• [ ] 12-month pre observation
• [ ] 12-month post observation
• [ ] What about during the modeling intervention period David? What makes the most sense here?

Background

• We previously looked to see if an Intake to EBP could be defined based on how the R21 protocol was written in which we hoped we could link CPT coded Intake encounters to our EBPs.
• We found we could not validly identify cases that way as we'd hoped.

However, it would be valuable to adjust and simply consider days from EBP initiation to completion. This is likely the next best estimate that could be validly calculated for Aim 2.

Proposed Solution

Therefore the R21 Notebook and R21 Findings would be able to describe these two outcomes:

• Aim 1b Dose would be pre and post EBP completers/ EBP initiators (a % or proportion of those who initiation who complete)
• Aim 2 would be # of days from EBP initiation to EBP completion.

Impact

This gets at the timeliness in days that we wanted to test in Aim 2. It's foundational to two interrelated ideas: a) quality care means getting a timely therapeutic course of an EBP (i.e., through a full course when you start). b) participatory system dynamics modeling helps stakeholders improve EBP course or continuity, and improving EBP throughput for EBPs known to lead to recovery is key to many feedbacks in our models.

[anthonycpichardo]

Discussed at 1pm Team Time 2/23/21

• EBPsy works because you can easily days between EBPsy initiation and EBPsy completion.
• EBPharm also work for "course/continuity" if we look at days between "issued" scripts.
• Issue - Initial dose was issued.
• Release Date Released to the patient.

But, we want to count # of days between the issued prescriptions by the provider.

CDW/SQL handling of the fact that for a stable patient you may be issued a new prescription without a subsequent.

EBPharm - standard of care - Have encounter with prescriber who evaluates you for a therapeutic response to the mediation.

EBPharm

• of days between issued meds.

And also # of days between issued meds that can be linked to a visit with a prescriber (psychiatrist, MD) evaluating for therapeutic response.

[anazariz]

@dkngenda and @anazariz have completed the coding/implementation of the components listed. Closing this ticket.