What's new
By:
Filters
Cystic Fibrosis Forum (EXP)

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Care Center Data Released

R

Ratatosk

Administrator
Staff member
Just noticed that care center info on each clinic is now available on the cff.org website. You do have to log on/register to access the info.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoundation/NewsEvents/index.cfm?ID=5581&TYPE=1670
">http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoun...cfm?ID=5581&TYPE=1670
</a>
L
 
R

Ratatosk

Administrator
Staff member
Just noticed that care center info on each clinic is now available on the cff.org website. You do have to log on/register to access the info.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoundation/NewsEvents/index.cfm?ID=5581&TYPE=1670
">http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoun...cfm?ID=5581&TYPE=1670
</a>
L
 
R

Ratatosk

Administrator
Staff member
Just noticed that care center info on each clinic is now available on the cff.org website. You do have to log on/register to access the info.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoundation/NewsEvents/index.cfm?ID=5581&TYPE=1670
">http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoun...cfm?ID=5581&TYPE=1670
</a>
L
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
mean FEV1 for children ages 6 to 17 at the University of Minnesota - 97.9%.

Man if I had a kid in that age range I would do everything humanly possible to find out what in the world they're doing at that Center to keep those kids so healthy.

That's an incredible number
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
mean FEV1 for children ages 6 to 17 at the University of Minnesota - 97.9%.

Man if I had a kid in that age range I would do everything humanly possible to find out what in the world they're doing at that Center to keep those kids so healthy.

That's an incredible number
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
mean FEV1 for children ages 6 to 17 at the University of Minnesota - 97.9%.

Man if I had a kid in that age range I would do everything humanly possible to find out what in the world they're doing at that Center to keep those kids so healthy.

That's an incredible number
 
M

miesl

New member
The adult number isn't so bad either - considering as a TX center they get patient referrals from other clinics.

One thing that bothers me about the statistics is that I know Jeremy is screwing them up.

a) He's been healthy this year - he's only been to clinic three times. Reason one being that he was healthy, reason two being that we had a lot of stuff going on when he should have been to clinic #3 (wedding and all) - so we extended the amount of time between visits. Is it a failing of the clinic? No, it's a success! They have a patient who would have gone in extra if he needed to, but was well enough to enjoy LIFE instead!

b) He won't have a glucose tolerance test this calendar year. Last year's was 12/30, and our next clinic is in early March - when he'll have his fun fun fun GTT. Because our last annual study was so close to the end of the year (insurance switch, we wanted it under the old coverage)... it's just isn't going to happen in 2006.
 
M

miesl

New member
The adult number isn't so bad either - considering as a TX center they get patient referrals from other clinics.

One thing that bothers me about the statistics is that I know Jeremy is screwing them up.

a) He's been healthy this year - he's only been to clinic three times. Reason one being that he was healthy, reason two being that we had a lot of stuff going on when he should have been to clinic #3 (wedding and all) - so we extended the amount of time between visits. Is it a failing of the clinic? No, it's a success! They have a patient who would have gone in extra if he needed to, but was well enough to enjoy LIFE instead!

b) He won't have a glucose tolerance test this calendar year. Last year's was 12/30, and our next clinic is in early March - when he'll have his fun fun fun GTT. Because our last annual study was so close to the end of the year (insurance switch, we wanted it under the old coverage)... it's just isn't going to happen in 2006.
 
M

miesl

New member
The adult number isn't so bad either - considering as a TX center they get patient referrals from other clinics.

One thing that bothers me about the statistics is that I know Jeremy is screwing them up.

a) He's been healthy this year - he's only been to clinic three times. Reason one being that he was healthy, reason two being that we had a lot of stuff going on when he should have been to clinic #3 (wedding and all) - so we extended the amount of time between visits. Is it a failing of the clinic? No, it's a success! They have a patient who would have gone in extra if he needed to, but was well enough to enjoy LIFE instead!

b) He won't have a glucose tolerance test this calendar year. Last year's was 12/30, and our next clinic is in early March - when he'll have his fun fun fun GTT. Because our last annual study was so close to the end of the year (insurance switch, we wanted it under the old coverage)... it's just isn't going to happen in 2006.
 
D

dbtoo

New member
Clean air up there in Minnesota.

I agree with the fun with figures, too. I didn't go to the clinic for about 18 months. That's gonna bring down some numbers. You can artificially inflate them too, by not sending in some data, but they wouldn't do that, would they?
 
D

dbtoo

New member
Clean air up there in Minnesota.

I agree with the fun with figures, too. I didn't go to the clinic for about 18 months. That's gonna bring down some numbers. You can artificially inflate them too, by not sending in some data, but they wouldn't do that, would they?
 
D

dbtoo

New member
Clean air up there in Minnesota.

I agree with the fun with figures, too. I didn't go to the clinic for about 18 months. That's gonna bring down some numbers. You can artificially inflate them too, by not sending in some data, but they wouldn't do that, would they?
 
L

LouLou

New member
It was interesting to look at all the clinics I have ever attended. I found it most useful to click on the bottom of the page 'click here' and it reports the last 5 years data.
Also I found this astrick to be suspicous or maybe I just don't get it. Can someone explain? How would they adjust the numbers for these items? Doesn't that seem like it would take the credibility out of the numbers??

* Adjusted for attained age of patients, gender, pancreatic sufficiency, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age of diagnosis

I understand that an inner city clinic's numbers aren't going to be as good as a world renown hospital in the county but how can they quantify what poverty (un educated parents) really do to lung function??? I sure hope they aren't only looking at people that compare apples to apples at each clinic. Seems sketchy.
 
L

LouLou

New member
It was interesting to look at all the clinics I have ever attended. I found it most useful to click on the bottom of the page 'click here' and it reports the last 5 years data.
Also I found this astrick to be suspicous or maybe I just don't get it. Can someone explain? How would they adjust the numbers for these items? Doesn't that seem like it would take the credibility out of the numbers??

* Adjusted for attained age of patients, gender, pancreatic sufficiency, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age of diagnosis

I understand that an inner city clinic's numbers aren't going to be as good as a world renown hospital in the county but how can they quantify what poverty (un educated parents) really do to lung function??? I sure hope they aren't only looking at people that compare apples to apples at each clinic. Seems sketchy.
 
L

LouLou

New member
It was interesting to look at all the clinics I have ever attended. I found it most useful to click on the bottom of the page 'click here' and it reports the last 5 years data.
Also I found this astrick to be suspicous or maybe I just don't get it. Can someone explain? How would they adjust the numbers for these items? Doesn't that seem like it would take the credibility out of the numbers??

* Adjusted for attained age of patients, gender, pancreatic sufficiency, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age of diagnosis

I understand that an inner city clinic's numbers aren't going to be as good as a world renown hospital in the county but how can they quantify what poverty (un educated parents) really do to lung function??? I sure hope they aren't only looking at people that compare apples to apples at each clinic. Seems sketchy.
 
P

princessjdc

New member
I was able to find my clinic, I didnt know that wichita kansas had one, so if I wanted I could transfer to over there, bc the radius is 100 on both ways. But I think Ill stay where Iam at, Tulsa is like my second home.
 
P

princessjdc

New member
I was able to find my clinic, I didnt know that wichita kansas had one, so if I wanted I could transfer to over there, bc the radius is 100 on both ways. But I think Ill stay where Iam at, Tulsa is like my second home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top