S A McLean1, J A Feldman. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has dramatically increased documentation and procedural supervision required by faculty in academic emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVES: To determine academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians' perceptions of the impact of HCFA documentation requirements (HDR) on teaching time, clinical efficiency, and job satisfaction. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was done using a survey of New England academic EM faculty from September to December 1999. E-mail surveys were followed by hard copy to nonresponders. Teaching time, clinical efficiency, and job satisfaction were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Yes/no questions about other possible benefits of HCFA regulations were asked. Frequency (95% CI) and chi-square analyses were performed. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four of 233 (75%) responded. Eighty-nine percent (95% CI = 84% to 93%) of the respondents thought teaching time was somewhat or markedly decreased by changes in HDR (somewhat 46%, markedly 43%). Seventy-nine percent (95% CI = 73% to 85%) believed clinical efficiency was somewhat or markedly decreased by changes in HDR (somewhat 49%, markedly 30%). Eighty percent (95% CI = 73% to 86%) reported somewhat or markedly decreased job satisfaction due to changes in HDR (somewhat 56%, markedly 24%). Twenty-one percent (95% CI = 15% to 27%) believed changes in HDR had improved patient care by requiring increased patient supervision. Forty-eight percent (95% CI = 40% to 56%) thought that changes in documentation requirements had decreased medicolegal risk by improving patient documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Most academic EM physicians in New England perceive that HDR have decreased clinical efficiency, teaching time, and job satisfaction. These findings suggest that changes in HDR may have a substantial impact on many different aspects of emergency care provided in academic settings.
BACKGROUND: The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has dramatically increased documentation and procedural supervision required by faculty in academic emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVES: To determine academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians' perceptions of the impact of HCFA documentation requirements (HDR) on teaching time, clinical efficiency, and job satisfaction. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was done using a survey of New England academic EM faculty from September to December 1999. E-mail surveys were followed by hard copy to nonresponders. Teaching time, clinical efficiency, and job satisfaction were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Yes/no questions about other possible benefits of HCFA regulations were asked. Frequency (95% CI) and chi-square analyses were performed. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four of 233 (75%) responded. Eighty-nine percent (95% CI = 84% to 93%) of the respondents thought teaching time was somewhat or markedly decreased by changes in HDR (somewhat 46%, markedly 43%). Seventy-nine percent (95% CI = 73% to 85%) believed clinical efficiency was somewhat or markedly decreased by changes in HDR (somewhat 49%, markedly 30%). Eighty percent (95% CI = 73% to 86%) reported somewhat or markedly decreased job satisfaction due to changes in HDR (somewhat 56%, markedly 24%). Twenty-one percent (95% CI = 15% to 27%) believed changes in HDR had improved patient care by requiring increased patient supervision. Forty-eight percent (95% CI = 40% to 56%) thought that changes in documentation requirements had decreased medicolegal risk by improving patient documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Most academic EM physicians in New England perceive that HDR have decreased clinical efficiency, teaching time, and job satisfaction. These findings suggest that changes in HDR may have a substantial impact on many different aspects of emergency care provided in academic settings.
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jennifer Dykema; John Stevenson; Brendan Day; Sherrill L Sellers; Vence L Bonham Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Erin H Baker; Jacob E Dowden; Allyson R Cochran; David A Iannitti; Eric T Kimchi; Kevin F Staveley-O'Carroll; D Rohan Jeyarajah Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Paul Sebo; Hubert Maisonneuve; Bernard Cerutti; Jean Pascal Fournier; Nicolas Senn; Dagmar M Haller Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jeremy J Hess; Joshua Wallenstein; Jeremy D Ackerman; Murtaza Akhter; Douglas Ander; Matthew T Keadey; James P Capes Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2015-10-20