A Multisite Retrospective Study Evaluating the Implementation of the Pasero Opioid-Induced Sedation Scale (POSS) and Its Effect on Patient Safety Outcomes.

The Joint Commission recommended the Pasero Opioid-induced Sedation Scale (POSS) to minimize opioid-induced respiratory depression. However, there is a paucity of data describing its impact on patient safety. This study assessed the impact of POSS implementation or reeducation on naloxone use in patients receiving hydromorphone. This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-approved study performed with the Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety was conducted in two phases, 3 months before and after intervention. The intervention was POSS implementation or reeducation at six sites in a variety of practice settings. A total of 212 patients were evaluated. For the primary endpoint, naloxone use occurred in 1.9% of patients in each group and occurred in 3.1 versus 3.5 patients per 1,000 patient days pre- versus postintervention (p = .902). For secondary endpoints, POSS documentation increased post- versus preintervention, 78.1% versus 26.4% (p < .001). More patients experienced unintended sedation based on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale or POSS post- versus preintervention, 12.2% versus 3.8% (p = .04). When the POSS was used, unintended sedation was likely detected before respiratory depression occurred and before naloxone was required. The lack of change in naloxone use and increased sedation postintervention may reflect that a POSS score 3 or 4 is a better marker of unintended sedation and should be considered as an endpoint instead of naloxone in future studies. The implementation or reeducation of the POSS at six area health-systems resulted in increased documentation of POSS and opioid-induced unintended sedation detection with no change in naloxone use.

How Is Physician Work Valued?

Strategies to value physician work continue to evolve. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database have an increasingly important role in this evolution. An understanding of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) system (American Medical Association [AMA], Chicago, IL) and the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) is necessary to comprehend how physician work is valued. In 1965, with the dawn of increasingly complex medical care, immense innovation, and the rollout of Medicare, the need for a common language describing medical services and procedures was recognized as being of critical importance. In 1966, the AMA, in cooperation with multiple major medical specialty societies, developed the CPT system, which is a coding system for the description of medical procedures and medical services. The RUC was created by the AMA in response to the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, legislation of the United States of America Federal government that mandated that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopt a relative value methodology for Medicare physician payment. The role of the RUC is to develop relative value recommendations for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. These recommendations include relative value recommendations for new procedures or services and also updates to relative value recommendations for previously valued procedures or services. These recommendations pertain to all physician work delivered to Medicare beneficiaries and propose relative values for all physician services, including updates to those based on the original resource-based relative value scale developed by Hsaio and colleagues. In so doing, widely differing work and services provided can be reviewed and comparisons of their relative value (to each other) can be established. The resource-based relative value scale assigns value to physician services using relative value units (RVUs), which consist of three components: work RVU, practice expense RVU, and malpractice RVU, also known as professional liability insurance RVU. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services retains the final decision-making authority on the RVUs associated with each procedure or service. The purpose of this article is to discuss the role that the CPT codes and the RUC play in the valuation of physician work and to provide an example of how the methodology for valuation of physician work continues to evolve.

Critical care in the surgical global period.

This article explores the rules and regulations from Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code set and US Medicare and Medicaid Services (Medicare) regarding multiple physicians reporting critical care services during the global period. The article takes into account the critical care definitions, regulations, documentation requirements, and services each provider can report to Medicare. A clinical scenario based on literature supporting the types of complications and care that might typically be included in the post-operative period for a patient who is surgically treated for a type A aortic dissection was analyzed. It was determined that multiple physicians may provide critical care services to a single patient during the global period. The physician who performed the primary procedure cannot report critical care separately unless documentation supporting use of modifier 25 (significant, separately identifiable services) or 24 (unrelated services) supports that critical care is unrelated to the global period. Other physicians may report critical care services separately if specific criteria are met. To report critical care services to Medicare, the patient's condition must meet the Medicare definition of critical care and the physicians should generally represent different specialties providing different aspects of care to the critically ill or injured patient as defined by Medicare. There should be no overlap in time of services provided by each physician. Each physician's documentation should clearly support medical necessity with the diagnosis demonstrating the critical nature of the patients' illness, the total time spent providing critical care, the critical care service provided, and other contributing factors.

Intravascular therapy process improvement in a multihospital system: don't get stuck with substandard care.

Using the process of FOCUS PDSA (a quality improvement format), two clinical nurse specialists reviewed the delivery of intravenous care at a multihospital (4-hospital) system. The clinical nurse specialists formed a multi-facility nursing team to lead the assessment, develop a plan, implement changes, and evaluate the process. This process reflects the use of clinical nurse specialists as experts in using research-based data, national recommendations, and benchmark data to ultimately improve practice and reduce risks and overall costs. This process allows the clinical nurse specialist to be viewed as an innovator, a project manager, and a program developer in a major system. The clinical nurse specialists were selected to lead this process improvement based on their knowledge and competencies in the specific area of intravenous therapy.