Targeted education for clinicians and clinical coding staff improves the accuracy of clinical coding: A quality improvement project.

The allocation of healthcare resources is reliant upon accurate information generated through clinical coding. Several factors contribute to coding inaccuracies, one of which is interpreting medical documentation. A lack of awareness among medical staff of the clinical coding process and the importance of detailed documentation exacerbates this problem. To investigate this further, 1 month of inpatient clinical coding data from a single hospital ward was reviewed by clinicians experienced in the coding and auditing process. If the reviewing clinician identified inaccuracies in the initial clinical coding, Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes were changed. Education sessions were then provided both to junior clinicians working on the hospital ward and to clinical coding staff and a further month of clinical coding data was again reviewed to assess for any difference after the sessions. HRG changes were made in 58.5% of 94 cases initially. Following the educational sessions, 20.5% of HRGs changed in 73 cases (p<0.0001), indicating more accurate initial clinical coding. There were also statistically significant reductions in the extent to which the primary and secondary diagnoses were changed. This study demonstrates that targeted education sessions for both junior clinicians and clinical coding staff can improve the accuracy of inpatient clinical coding.

Clinician-directed improvement in the accuracy of hospital clinical coding.

'Payment by results' (PbR) remuneration for healthcare services relies on the accurate conversion of diagnoses into Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes that are then reimbursed. Inconsistencies in documentation can result in inaccuracies in this process, with consequent implications for measuring activity, disease incidence and organisational performance. The aim of this study was to determine if clinician involvement increases accuracy in the coding of medical cases. Selected records of medical patients admitted to a London NHS trust between November and December 2016 were reviewed by a coding auditor and a clinician. Any changes to the codes and HRG tariff were noted. In total, 123 cases were considered. Changes in code were made on 68 instances, resulting in an overall increase in remuneration of £39,215; an average of £318 per patient. The primary HRG code was changed in 31 cases which accounted for £28,040 of the increase in tariff. In conclusion, clinician involvement can help with documentation ambiguities, thus improving the accuracy of the coding process in a medical setting. Although such collaborative working offers advantages for both the clinician and the coding team, further work is required to investigate the feasibility of this recommendation on a larger scale.

Accuracy of clinician-clinical coder information handover following acute medical admissions: implication for using administrative datasets in clinical outcomes management.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the accuracy, limitations and potential sources of improvement in the clinical utility of the administrative dataset for acute medicine admissions. METHODS: Accuracy of clinical coding in 8888 patient discharges following an emergency medical hospital admission to a teaching hospital and a district hospital over 3 years was ascertained by a coding accuracy audit team in respect of the primary and secondary diagnoses, morbidities and financial variance. RESULTS: There was at least one change to the original coding in 4889 admissions (55%) and to the primary diagnosis of at least one finished consultant episodes of 1496 spells (16.8%). There were significant changes in the number of secondary diagnoses and the Charlson morbidity index following the audit. Charlson score increased in 8.2% and decreased in 2.3% of patients. An income variance of £816 977 (+5.0%) or £91.92 per patient was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The importance and applications of coded healthcare big data within the NHS is increasing. The accuracy of coding is dependent on high-fidelity information transfer between clinicians and coders, which is prone to subjectivity, variability and error. We recommend greater involvement of clinicians as part of multidisciplinary teams to improve data accuracy, and urgent action to improve abstraction and clarity of assignment of strategic diagnoses like pneumonia and renal failure.

Financial and clinical governance implications of clinical coding accuracy in neurosurgery: a multidisciplinary audit.

Clinical coding is the translation of documented clinical activities during an admission to a codified language. Healthcare Resource Groupings (HRGs) are derived from coding data and are used to calculate payment to hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland and to conduct national audit and benchmarking exercises. Coding is an error-prone process and an understanding of its accuracy within neurosurgery is critical for financial, organizational and clinical governance purposes. We undertook a multidisciplinary audit of neurosurgical clinical coding accuracy. Neurosurgeons trained in coding assessed the accuracy of 386 patient episodes. Where clinicians felt a coding error was present, the case was discussed with an experienced clinical coder. Concordance between the initial coder-only clinical coding and the final clinician-coder multidisciplinary coding was assessed. At least one coding error occurred in 71/386 patients (18.4%). There were 36 diagnosis and 93 procedure errors and in 40 cases, the initial HRG changed (10.4%). Financially, this translated to pound111 revenue-loss per patient episode and projected to pound171,452 of annual loss to the department. 85% of all coding errors were due to accumulation of coding changes that occurred only once in the whole data set. Neurosurgical clinical coding is error-prone. This is financially disadvantageous and with the coding data being the source of comparisons within and between departments, coding inaccuracies paint a distorted picture of departmental activity and subspecialism in audit and benchmarking. Clinical engagement improves accuracy and is encouraged within a clinical governance framework.