Stroke clinical coding education program in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Accurate coded diagnostic data are important for epidemiological research of stroke. OBJECTIVE: To develop, implement and evaluate an online education program for improving clinical coding of stroke. METHOD: The Australia and New Zealand Stroke Coding Working Group co-developed an education program comprising eight modules: rationale for coding of stroke; understanding stroke; management of stroke; national coding standards; coding trees; good clinical documentation; coding practices; and scenarios. Clinical coders and health information managers participated in the 90-minute education program. Pre- and post-education surveys were administered to assess knowledge of stroke and coding, and to obtain feedback. Descriptive analyses were used for quantitative data, inductive thematic analysis for open-text responses, with all results triangulated. RESULTS: Of 615 participants, 404 (66%) completed both pre- and post-education assessments. Respondents had improved knowledge for 9/12 questions (p < 0.05), including knowledge of applicable coding standards, coding of intracerebral haemorrhage and the actions to take when coding stroke (all p < 0.001). Majority of respondents agreed that information was pitched at an appropriate level; education materials were well organised; presenters had adequate knowledge; and that they would recommend the session to colleagues. In qualitative evaluations, the education program was beneficial for newly trained clinical coders, or as a knowledge refresher, and respondents valued clinical information from a stroke neurologist. CONCLUSION: Our education program was associated with increased knowledge for clinical coding of stroke. To continue to address the quality of coded stroke data through improved stroke documentation, the next stage will be to adapt the educational program for clinicians.

A qualitative investigation into clinical documentation: why do clinicians document the way they do?

BACKGROUND: Clinical documentation is a fundamental component of patient care. The transition from paper based to electronic medical records/electronic health records has highlighted a number of issues associated with documentation practices including duplication. Developing new ways to document the care provided to patients and in turn, persuading clinicians to accept a change, must be supported by evidence that a change is required. In Australia, there has been a limited number of studies exploring the clinical documentation practices and beliefs of clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To gain an in-depth understanding of clinician documentation practices. METHOD: A qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with clinicians (allied health professionals, doctors (physicians) and nurses) working in a tertiary-level hospital in South-East Queensland, Australia. RESULTS: Several themes emerged from the data: environmental factors, including departmental policy and systemic issues, and personal factors, including verification, clinical reasoning and experience influencing documentation practices. CONCLUSION: Our study identified that the documentation practices of clinicians are complex, being driven by both environmental and systemic factors and personal factors. This in turn leads to duplication and some redundancy. The documentation burden of duplication could be reduced by changes in policy, supported by multidisciplinary documentation procedures and electronic systems aligned with clinician workflows, while retaining some flexible documentation practices. The documentation practices of individuals, when considered from the perspective of enhancing quality care, are considered legitimate and therefore will continue to form part of the health (medical) record regardless of the format.

Documentation of clinical care in hospital patients' medical records: A qualitative study of medical students' perspectives on clinical documentation education.

BACKGROUND: Clinical documentation is essential for communication between health professionals and the provision of quality care to patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine medical students' perspectives of their education in documentation of clinical care in hospital patients' medical records. METHOD: A qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with fourth-year medical students was undertaken at a hospital-based clinical school in an Australian university. RESULTS: Several themes reflecting medical students' clinical documentation education emerged from the data: formal clinical documentation education using lectures and tutorials was minimal; most education occurred on the job by junior doctors and student's expressed concerns regarding variation in education between teams and receiving limited feedback on performance. Respondents reported on the importance of feedback for their learning of disease processes and treatments. They suggested that improvements could be made in the timing of clinical documentation education and they stressed the importance of training on the job. CONCLUSION: On-the-job education with feedback in clinical documentation provides a learning opportunity for medical students and is essential in order to ensure accurate, safe, succinct and timely clinical notes.

Are general practitioners getting the information they need from hospitals to manage their lung cancer patients? A qualitative exploration.

The delivery of cancer services is primarily hospital-based; however, General Practitioners (GPs) have a key role to play within the context of a multidisciplinary model of care. In order to fulfill their role in cancer care GPs must receive complete and timely information from appropriate members of the hospital team. The aim of this study was to investigate perceptions of the quality, format and timeliness of the patient information GPs receive from a multidisciplinary hospital-based lung cancer team, and elicit how communication between the team and the GP could be improved. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with a representative sample (n=22) of members of the hospital team and a sample of GPs (n=8). A grounded theory approach was used to categorise the data. Most communications with GPs were from medical officers; however, GPs desired information from all health professional groups in the hospital-based lung cancer team. Most GPs were dissatisfied with the timing of communication. A multidisciplinary discharge summary was suggested as a means of providing both clinical and social information from the team to the GP. Further developments in electronic health records could improve access to patient information by GPs. Results from this study illustrate the need for GPs to receive information from all members of the multidisciplinary hospital team so that they may fulfill their diverse role in supporting patients through all phases of the cancer journey.

What information do general practitioners need to care for patients with lung cancer? A survey of general practitioners perceptions.

General practitioners (GPs) are an integral part of the multidisciplinary team that care for patients with lung cancer. It is essential that patient information including results of tests, management plans, treatment, and follow-up arrangements are communicated between hospital-based carers and the community-based GP. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' views about the information they need from hospital-based health professionals in the management of their patients with lung cancer. This exploration is undertaken within the context of a multidisciplinary model of care, a relatively new concept in service delivery for cancer patients. Data were collected using a questionnaire that was distributed to the population of 433 GPs from one Australian regional Division of General Practice. Questions related to from whom, what, when and how GPs would like to receive information from the multidisciplinary hospital-based lung cancer team. GPs reported that they wanted information from all members of the multidisciplinary hospital-based lung cancer team, not just physicians. The key triggers for communication included: any change in the patient's condition; following initial outpatient visit; at admission and discharge; and following treatment milestones. Both medical and social information were seen as important to GPs and there was strong support to receive information electronically. This study illustrates the desire by GPs to receive information from all members of the hospital-based lung cancer team if it is relevant to the ongoing care of their patient. Technology-enabled solutions, such as an electronic multidisciplinary discharge summary, the electronic health record and the person-controlled electronic health record, offer strategies to improve both timeliness and access to information.