Literature DB >> 20224505

Medical decision making: guide to improved CPT coding.

Jim Holt1, Ambreen Warsy, Paula Wright.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding system for office visits, which has been in use since 1995, has not been well studied, but it is generally agreed that the system contains much room for error. In fact, the available literature suggests that only slightly more than half of physicians will agree on the same CPT code for a given visit, and only 60% of professional coders will agree on the same code for a particular visit. In addition, the criteria used to assign a code are often related to the amount of written documentation. The goal of this study was to evaluate two novel methods to assess if the most appropriate CPT code is used: the level of medical decision making, or the sum of all problems mentioned by the patient during the visit.
METHODS: The authors-a professional coder, a residency faculty member, and a PGY-3 family medicine resident-reviewed 351 randomly selected visit notes from two residency programs in the Northeast Tennessee region for the level of documentation, the level of medical decision making, and the total number of problems addressed. The authors assigned appropriate CPT codes at each of those three levels.
RESULTS: Substantial undercoding occurred at each of the three levels. Approximately 33% of visits were undercoded based on the written documentation. Approximately 50% of the visits were undercoded based on the level of documented medical decision making. Approximately 80% of the visits were undercoded based on the total number of problems which the patient presented during the visit. Interrater agreement was fair, and similar to that noted in other coding studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Undercoding is not only common in a family medicine residency program but it also occurs at levels that would not be evident from a simple audit of the documentation on the visit note. Undercoding also occurs from not exploring problems mentioned by the patient and not documenting additional work that was performed. Family physicians may benefit from minor alterations in their documentation of office visit notes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20224505     DOI: 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e3181d2f19b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  South Med J        ISSN: 0038-4348            Impact factor:   0.954


  5 in total

Review 1.  Improving the Patient-Clinician Interface of Clinical Trials through Health Informatics Technologies.

Authors:  Jake Carrion
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Is carpal tunnel release under-utilized in veterans with spinal cord injury?

Authors:  Cameron Barr; Paola Suarez; Doug Ota; Catherine M Curtin
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.985

3.  Classification of Current Procedural Terminology Codes from Electronic Health Record Data Using Machine Learning.

Authors:  Michael L Burns; Michael R Mathis; John Vandervest; Xinyu Tan; Bo Lu; Douglas A Colquhoun; Nirav Shah; Sachin Kheterpal; Leif Saager
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  Coding of procedures documented by general practitioners in Swedish primary care-an explorative study using two procedure coding systems.

Authors:  Anna Vikström; Maria Hägglund; Mikael Nyström; Lars-Erik Strender; Sabine Koch; Per Hjerpe; Ulf Lindblad; Gunnar H Nilsson
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  State synergies and disease surveillance: creating an electronic health data communication model for cancer reporting and comparative effectiveness research in kentucky.

Authors:  Christopher Reams; Mallory Powell; Rob Edwards
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2014-08-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.