Dear Jussi,

Thank you for information. I am resending you corrected two files. Also next week our experts will be in Tbilisi (Kritiina Kahur and Triin Habicht) is it possible to provide skype call on Tuesday, 19.02?

Thank you in advance,

Keti

Hello!

Status (numbering equal to list in the previous mail)

1.       In the tables ”v1.1” from NCC 4.2.2019, K436 and K437 are now included, thank-you Martti! We do not see any errors or obvious shortcomings in our testing w. test data set. Of course this is not and is not intended to be a full scale clinical coding data vs. grouper quality assurance.
I suggest to go on and build actual production version setup kits with this definitions tables version.

2.       PDC sends certification application to NCC.

3.       NCC sends PDF certificate to us.

Another topic was (not related directly to NCC’s def tables because we must maintain those external from original tables, because of UTF-8 character coding required) final diagnosis translations to Georgian. There were some missing translations. Now, in this new NCC’s table set v1.1 ATC codes are no longer included, those do not affect DRG results and having or not those included in VisualDRG diagnosis selection tool is of minor importance but having them do not cause any harm either. Have you filled in the missing translations? Also we can proceed w/o anything new, in which case some dg codes may lack Georgian text in VisualDRG, which doesn’t affect grouping output anyhow. Note that this is not a list of accepted and known dg codes for DRG but a list for helper function to data entry in VD. Ref. to my mail and Excel attachment 23.1.2019 “Georgian ICD-10 text for VisualDRG”.  Will you send new translations or do we proceed with existing ones?

Best regards,

Jussi

Hello!

The next steps in co-op w. NCC should be the following. Refer also to e-mails 23.1.2019.

1. We’ll get a new definitions table set from NCC, including diagnosis codes K436 and K437, or a confirmation that those will not be added in this version.

2. We’ll send application for certification to NCC including the standard test case file with known errors mainly in DRGs 388 and 390 vs test cases in tables.

3. NCC sends to us a certificate (PDF) similar with Nordic certificates for version GEO2018PR1.

This version or certification doesn’t cause expenses to Georgian Ministry or Prodacapo, from NCC.

RFC? Agree or disagree  on something?

Best regards,

Jussi

Hello!

We must agree on whether GEO grouper version will be certified by NCC, and if yes then how.

Certification is a standard procedure for the Nordic versions formally.

If we certify, then

·         We’ll send certification files to NCC (standard “Certification kit” including test.txt), who checks the results and writes to us a certificate. In practice the certificate is an one page signed (by NCC) document as PDF, that states that Prodacapo’s grouper version GEO2018PR1 works according to NCC’s specifications.

·         Test cases in current definition tables resulted in ca. 590 error cases. We checked briefly w. Kristiina Kahur (the previous table set earlier last year) and her conclusion was that those doesn’t seem to be errors of grouper. Erroneous test cases in GEO tables (attached) originate probably from using LAT versions test cases, not updated in full. Those are mostly in newborns DRG groups (388, 390). Errors log attached.

·         Extra work involved for certification (preparations, test case updates etc.) could mean extra work for us or NCC.

Of course we can alternatively mutually agree on not to certify, in which case we remove certification information from our batch grouper, Web API and VisualDRG software packages for this version.

What do you think, how to proceed?

Best regards,

Jussi