Dataset Information

Coder perspectives on physician-related barriers to producing high-quality administrative data: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Professional coding specialists ("coders") are experts at translating patient chart information into alphanumerical codes, which are then widely used in research and health policy decision-making. Coders rely solely on documentation by health care providers to complete this task. We aimed to explore physician-related barriers to coding that results in high-quality administrative data.

Methods

In a qualitative study conducted from December 2015 to March 2016, we recruited 28 coders who worked in health care facilities in Alberta using purposive and snowball sampling. Semistructured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed. The interviews delved into coder training, work environment, documentation and coding standards. Thematic content analysis of transcripts was performed by 2 study investigators through line-by-line coding and constant comparison, after which the codes were collated into themes.

Results

Five themes emerged regarding physician-related barriers in coding of high-quality administrative data: 1) coders are limited in their ability to add to, modify or interpret physician documentation, which supersedes all other chart documentation, 2) physician documentation is incomplete and nonspecific, 3) chart information tends to be replete with errors and discrepancies, 4) physicians and coders use different terminology to describe clinical diagnoses and 5) there is a communication divide between coders and physicians, such that questions and issues regarding physician documentation cannot be reconciled.

Interpretation

Physicians play a major role in influencing the quality of administrative data. There is a need for physicians to advocate for culture change in physicians' attitudes toward coders and chart documentation, in recognition of the importance of accurate chart information.

SUBMITTER: Tang KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5621953 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiving patients access to their medical records (ie, open health records) can support doctor-patient communication and patient-centered care and can improve quality of care, patients' health literacy, self-care, and treatment adherence. In Germany, patients are entitled by law to have access to their medical records. However, in practice doing so remains an exception in Germany. So far, research has been focused on organizational implementation barriers. Little is known about physicians' attitudes and perspectives toward opening records in German primary care.ObjectiveThis qualitative study aims to provide a better understanding of physicians' attitudes toward opening records in primary care in Germany. To expand the knowledge base that future implementation programs could draw from, this study focuses on professional self-conception as an influencing factor regarding the approval for open health records. Perspectives of practicing primary care physicians and advanced medical students were explored.MethodsData were collected through semistructured guide-based interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and advanced medical students. Participants were asked to share their perspectives on open health records in German general practices, as well as perceived implications, their expectations for future medical records, and the conditions for a potential implementation. Data were pseudonymized, audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim. Themes and subthemes were identified through thematic analysis.ResultsBarriers and potential advantages were reported by 7 GPs and 7 medical students (N=14). The following barriers were identified: (1) data security, (2) increased workload, (3) costs, (4) the patients' limited capabilities, and (5) the physicians' concerns. The following advantages were reported: (1) patient education and empowerment, (2) positive impact on the practice, and (3) improved quality of care. GPs' professional self-conception influenced their approval for open records: GPs considered their aspiration for professional autonomy and freedom from external control to be threatened and their knowledge-based support of patients to be obstructed by open records. Medical students emphasized the chance to achieve shared decision making through open records and expected the implementation to be realistic in the near future. GPs were more hesitant and voiced a strong resistance toward sharing notes on perceptions that go beyond clinical data. Reliable technical conditions, the participants' consent, and a joint development of the implementation project to meet the GPs' interests were requested.ConclusionsOpen health record concepts can be seen as a chance to increase transparency in health care. For a potential future implementation in Germany, thorough consideration regarding the compatibility of GPs' professional values would be warranted. However, the medical students' positive attitude provides an optimistic perspective. Further research and a broad support from decision makers would be crucial to establish open records in Germany.

Project description:BackgroundThe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift in primary health care from predominantly in-person to high volumes of virtual care. The pandemic afforded the opportunity to conduct a deep regional examination of virtual care by family physicians in London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada that would inform the foundation for virtual care in our region post-pandemic.Objectives(1) to determine volumes of in-person and virtual family physicians visits and characteristics of the family physicians and patients using them during the early COVID-19 pandemic; (2) to determine how virtual visit volumes changed over the pandemic, compared to in-person; and (3) to explore family physicians' experience in virtual visit adoption and implementation.MethodsWe conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study of family physicians from March to October 2020. The quantitative component examined mean weekly number of total, in-person and virtual visits using health administrative data. Differences in outcomes according to physician and practice characteristics for pandemic periods were compared to pre-pandemic. The qualitative study employed Constructivist Grounded Theory, conducting semi-structured family physicians interviews; analyzing data iteratively using constant comparative analysis. We mapped themes from the qualitative analysis to quantitative findings.ResultsInitial volumes of patients decreased, driven by fewer in-person visits. Virtual visit volumes increased dramatically; family physicians described using telephone almost entirely. Rural family physicians reported video connectivity issues. By early second wave, total family physician visit volume returned to pre-pandemic volumes. In-person visits increased substantially; family physicians reported this happened because previously scarce personal protective equipment became available. Patients seen during the pandemic were older, sicker, and more materially deprived.ConclusionThese results can inform the future of virtual family physician care including the importance of continued virtual care compensation, the need for equitable family physician payment models, and the need to attend to equity for vulnerable patients. Given the move to virtual care was primarily a move to telephone care, the modality of care delivery that is acceptable to both family physicians and their patients must be considered.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) experience lengthy diagnostic delays upwards of 14 years. (5-14 years). Screening tools for axSpA have been proposed for use in primary care settings, but whether this approach could be implemented into busy primary care settings remains unknown.ObjectiveTo solicit feedback from primary care physicians regarding questions from the Inflammatory Back Pain Assessment: the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) Expert Criteria and gain insight about barriers and facilitators for implementing axSpA screening in primary care.MethodsGuided by Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ-criteria), we recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in-depth interviews with eight family medicine physicians and ten internists (purposeful sampling) using immersion/crystallization techniques.ResultsFew physicians reported awareness of existing classification criteria for axSpA, and many reported a lack of confidence in their ability to distinguish between inflammatory and mechanical back pain. From three domains, 10 subthemes emerged: 1) typical work-up of axSpA patients in primary care, with subthemes including the clues involved in work-up and role of clinical examinations for axSpA; 2) feedback on questions from the Inflammatory Back Pain Assessment: ASAS Expert Criteria, with subthemes to evaluate contents/questions of a potential screening tool for axSpA; and 3) implementation of the screening tool in primary care settings, with subthemes of perceived barriers including awareness, time, other conditions to screen, rare disease, and lack of structured questionnaire for back pain and perceived facilitators including workflow issues and awareness.ConclusionsPrimary care physicians believed that an improved screening instrument and a strong evidence-base to support the need for screening for axSpA are required. The implementation of axSpA screening into a busy primary care practice requires integration into the practice workflow, with use of technology suggested as a possible way to improve efficiency.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) includes the ability to collaborate in an interprofessional team as a core professional activity that trainees should be able to complete on day 1 of residency (Med Sci Educ. 26:797-800, 2016). The training that medical students require in order to achieve this competency, however, is not well established (Med Sci Educ. 26:457-61, 2016), and few studies have examined non-physician healthcare professionals' perspectives regarding resident physicians' interprofessional skills. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to describe non-physicians' views on barriers to collaboration with physicians, as well as factors that contribute to good collaborative relationships. PARTICIPANTS:Nurses, social workers, case managers, dietitians, rehabilitation therapists, and pharmacists at one academic medical center, largely working in the inpatient setting. APPROACH:A qualitative study design was employed. Data were collected from individual interviews and focus groups comprising non-physician healthcare professionals. KEY RESULTS:Knowledge gaps identified as impeding interprofessional collaboration included inadequate understanding of current roles, potential roles, and processes for non-physician healthcare professionals. Specific physician behaviors that were identified as contributing to good collaborative relationships included mutual support such as backing up other team members and prioritizing multidisciplinary rounds, and communication including keeping team members informed, asking for their input, physicians explaining their rationale, and practicing joint problem-solving with non-physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Discussion of how physician trainees can best learn to collaborate as members of an interprofessional team must include non-physician perspectives. Training designed to provide medical students and residents with a better understanding of non-physician roles and to enhance mutual support and communication skills may be critical in achieving the AAMC's goals of making physicians effective members of interprofessional teams, and thus improving patient-centered care. We hope that medical educators will include these areas identified as important by non-physicians in targeted team training for their learners.