Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes.

OBJECTIVE: To assses the relationship between methods of documenting visit notes and note quality for primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, and to determine the factors that contribute to higher quality notes for two chronic diseases. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of visit notes at two academic medical centers. Two physicians rated the subjective quality of content areas of the note (vital signs, medications, lifestyle, labs, symptoms, assessment & plan), overall quality, and completed the 9 item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9). We evaluated quality ratings in relation to the primary method of documentation (templates, free-form or dictation) for both PCPs and specialists. A one factor analysis of variance test was used to examine differences in mean quality scores among the methods. RESULTS: A total of 112 physicians, 71 primary care physicians (PCP) and 41 specialists, wrote 240 notes. For specialists, templated notes had the highest overall quality scores (p≤0.001) while for PCPs, there was no statistically significant difference in overall quality score. For PCPs, free form received higher quality ratings on vital signs (p = 0.01), labs (p = 0.002), and lifestyle (p = 0.002) than other methods; templated notes had a higher rating on medications (p≤0.001). For specialists, templated notes received higher ratings on vital signs, labs, lifestyle and medications (p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: There was no significant difference in subjective quality of visit notes written using free-form documentation, dictation or templates for PCPs. The subjective quality rating of templated notes was higher than that of dictated notes for specialists. CONCLUSION: As there is wide variation in physician documentation methods, and no significant difference in note quality between methods, recommending one approach for all physicians may not deliver optimal results.

Abdominal cross-sectional imaging for inpatients with abnormal liver function test results: yield and usefulness.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal cross-sectional imaging is often performed to evaluate abnormal liver function test (LFT) results in hospitalized patients. However, few data are available regarding the yield and usefulness of imaging inpatients for the indication of abnormal LFT results, the process of requesting abdominal imaging studies, or the response to their findings. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed abdominal imaging scans that were obtained during a 27-month period. We matched the imaging studies done with the indication of abnormal LFT results; all scans were requested using computerized physician order entry. Reports were coded for interpretation and associated process step results. To determine the usefulness of the imaging studies, a random sample of patient charts with positively coded imaging studies were reviewed. Imaging examinations were considered useful if they provided new diagnostic information and/or changed subsequent patient care. RESULTS: Of 6494 abdominal imaging studies, 856 were performed for the indication of abnormal LFT results and matched to both image reports and laboratory results. Report coding judged 37% of interpretations as clinically significant, including 27% with "positive" (abnormal results and explain the abnormal LFT results) examinations. Among the positive examinations, the most common diagnoses were biliary obstruction (25%), cholecystitis (21%), malignancy (20%), and cirrhosis (14%). Positively coded reports provided new clinical information in 63% of these studies and changed patient care in 42% of cases. Process measures assessed provision of additional information to and from radiologists (69% and 8%, respectively) and the frequency with which the findings of current abdominal imaging studies were compared with those of prior studies (59%). CONCLUSION: Abdominal cross-sectional imaging studies performed on inpatients with abnormal LFT results had a high diagnostic yield and frequently changed patient care.

A process to maintain the quality of a computerized knowledge base.

As part of a project to develop knowledge-based reminders for the outpatient setting, we developed a process to help maintain the quality of the knowledge base. The knowledge engineering process involved many parties, including several domain experts, a knowledge engineer, and a programmer and a process was necessary to assure that information transfer among individuals did not become confused. An MS Access database was created to store, among other data, textual versions of the rules as they evolved over time. In a 9-month period 36 rules were entered into the database. Of those, 17 are still active in their original form. The remaining 19 underwent various types of modifications; these changes were tracked in the database. Processes and tools to maintain knowledge bases are necessary if the benefits of clinical decision support systems are to be realized and investments in knowledge engineering are to be protected.

Towards improving the accuracy of the clinical database: allowing outpatients to review their computerized data.

We developed an application that allowed patients coming to the clinic to review on a paper form their computerized health maintenance, medication, and allergy data. The patient could edit the paper form and the physician then could enter the new data into the database. We implemented the system in 4 clinics (17 MDs) To evaluate the system, we reviewed 80 forms from one physician's patients to determine how often patients provided new data. We also sent questionnaires to the physicians asking for their estimates of how often there was new data and for their impression of the system. We interviewed secretaries in the clinics about logistical issues. Of the 80 forms, 29 (36%) had new data; 28% had new health maintenance data and 19% had new medication data. The 7 physicians who responded to the questionnaire estimated that new health maintenance data were present on 22% of the forms. The physicians who responded to the questionnaire felt the system was useful. The secretaries said that managing the paper flow in the clinic was often unwieldy and in some clinics, the system has been abandoned or is used intermittently. Having patients review their data is one avenue to improving the accuracy of computerized records.