Beyond Cerner DA2 Reports: Why Live Data is Preferred for Downstream Applications

There are many challenges with Cerner Data and managing Rev Cycle data extraction. In some cases, relying on Cerner’s DA2 reports can cause errors in reporting with downstream applications. For many reasons, using LIVE data for downstream applications like Cerner RevCycle, Crowe, Axiom and Strata is preferred. In this blog, we’ll dig into the reasons to use live data over Cerner DA2 reports and how hospitals can access their live data. 

What are DA2 reports?

DA2, or Discern Analytics, is Cerner’s built-in reporting system. It not only provides pre-defined reports but also uses data from Cerner’s “Gold Standard Reports” (GSR) tables. These GSR tables are essentially snapshots of data taken daily from Cerner’s live database, often aggregated for easier reporting. Similar to how Extractomatic extracts data daily for various purposes, Cerner also exports data from its live tables to these GSR tables.

What’s the alternative?

Extractomatic, on the other hand, pulls data directly from Cerner’s “live” database tables. These are the constantly updated tables that reflect real-time patient activity such as charges and care received. This approach allows us to directly compare the extracted data with the front-end applications, which proves invaluable during reconciliation processes.

 So, is GSR data bad?

Not at all! Both GSR and live data have their pros and cons:

 GSR Data:

• Pros:
  • Provides historic snapshots of data on specific dates.
  • Structured for easier reporting (combining data from multiple live tables).
  • Matches Cerner’s “canned reports” most of the time.
• Cons:
  • Data is not populated until later in the day.
  • Lacks transparency in how Cerner populates the tables.
  • Updated only once a day.
  • May not match the front-end applications exactly.
  • Excludes some data present in live tables.
  • Aggregated fields might differ from individual transactions.

Live Data:

• Pros:
  • Matches front-end applications almost perfectly (99.9%).
  • Can be extracted anytime for the most up-to-date information.
  • Straightforward data model (compared to GSR).
  • Includes all transactional data for validation.
• Cons:
  • Doesn’t capture historical data snapshots.
  • Often requires looking at multiple tables for a complete picture.
  • Constantly changing, leading to potential discrepancies in data extracted at different times.

Ultimately, the choice between using DA2 reports or Extractomatic’s approach depends on your specific needs. If historical data snapshots and pre-defined reports are sufficient, DA2 might be suitable. However, if you require real-time data, transparency, and the ability to validate data down to the transaction level, Extractomatic’s method offers significant advantages.