Danielle E Weber1,2, Justin D Held3, Roman A Jandarov3, Matthew Kelleher3,4, Ben Kinnear3,4, Dana Sall3, Jennifer K O'Toole3,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. weber2de@ucmail.uc.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA. weber2de@ucmail.uc.edu. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Documentation is a key component of practice, yet few curricula have been published to teach trainees proper note construction. Additionally, a gold standard for assessing note quality does not exist, and no documentation assessment tools integrate with established competency-based frameworks. OBJECTIVE: To develop and establish initial validity evidence for a novel tool that assesses key components of trainee admission notes and maps to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestone framework. DESIGN: Using an iterative, consensus building process we developed the Admission Note Assessment Tool (ANAT). Pilot testing was performed with both the supervising attending and study team raters not involved in care of the patients. The finalized tool was piloted with attendings from other institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Local experts participated in tool development and pilot testing. Additional attending physicians participated in pilot testing. MAIN MEASURES: Content, response process, and internal structure validity evidence was gathered using Messick's framework. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using percent agreement. KEY RESULTS: The final tool consists of 16 checklist items and two global assessment items. Pilot testing demonstrated rater agreement of 72% to 100% for checklist items and 63% to 70% for global assessment items. Note assessment required an average of 12.3 min (SD 3.7). The study generated validity evidence in the domains of content, response process, and internal structure for use of the tool in rating admission notes. CONCLUSIONS: The ANAT assesses individual components of a note, incorporates billing criteria, targets note "bloat," allows for narrative feedback, and provides global assessments mapped to the ACGME milestone framework. The ANAT can be used to assess admission notes by any attending and at any time after note completion with minimal rater training. The ANAT allows programs to implement routine note assessment for multiple functions with the use of a single tool.
BACKGROUND: Documentation is a key component of practice, yet few curricula have been published to teach trainees proper note construction. Additionally, a gold standard for assessing note quality does not exist, and no documentation assessment tools integrate with established competency-based frameworks. OBJECTIVE: To develop and establish initial validity evidence for a novel tool that assesses key components of trainee admission notes and maps to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestone framework. DESIGN: Using an iterative, consensus building process we developed the Admission Note Assessment Tool (ANAT). Pilot testing was performed with both the supervising attending and study team raters not involved in care of the patients. The finalized tool was piloted with attendings from other institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Local experts participated in tool development and pilot testing. Additional attending physicians participated in pilot testing. MAIN MEASURES: Content, response process, and internal structure validity evidence was gathered using Messick's framework. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using percent agreement. KEY RESULTS: The final tool consists of 16 checklist items and two global assessment items. Pilot testing demonstrated rater agreement of 72% to 100% for checklist items and 63% to 70% for global assessment items. Note assessment required an average of 12.3 min (SD 3.7). The study generated validity evidence in the domains of content, response process, and internal structure for use of the tool in rating admission notes. CONCLUSIONS: The ANAT assesses individual components of a note, incorporates billing criteria, targets note "bloat," allows for narrative feedback, and provides global assessments mapped to the ACGME milestone framework. The ANAT can be used to assess admission notes by any attending and at any time after note completion with minimal rater training. The ANAT allows programs to implement routine note assessment for multiple functions with the use of a single tool.
Entities:
Keywords:
assessment; documentation; electronic health records; evaluation; medical education
Authors: John Norcini; Brownell Anderson; Valdes Bollela; Vanessa Burch; Manuel João Costa; Robbert Duvivier; Robert Galbraith; Richard Hays; Athol Kent; Vanessa Perrott; Trudie Roberts Journal: Med Teach Date: 2011 Impact factor: 3.650
Authors: Eric J Warm; Bradley R Mathis; Justin D Held; Savita Pai; Jonathan Tolentino; Lauren Ashbrook; Cheryl K Lee; David Lee; Sharice Wood; Carl J Fichtenbaum; Daniel Schauer; Ryan Munyon; Caroline Mueller Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Eric J Warm; Justin D Held; Michael Hellmann; Matthew Kelleher; Benjamin Kinnear; Caroline Lee; Jennifer K O'Toole; Bradley Mathis; Caroline Mueller; Dana Sall; Jonathan Tolentino; Daniel P Schauer Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Jennifer A Bierman; Kathryn Kinner Hufmeyer; David T Liss; A Charlotta Weaver; Heather L Heiman Journal: Teach Learn Med Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 2.414
Authors: Benjamin Kinnear; Rachel Bensman; Justin Held; Jennifer O'Toole; Daniel Schauer; Eric Warm Journal: Acad Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Robert Englander; Timothy Flynn; Stephanie Call; Carol Carraccio; Lynn Cleary; Tracy B Fulton; Maureen J Garrity; Steven A Lieberman; Brenessa Lindeman; Monica L Lypson; Rebecca M Minter; Jay Rosenfield; Joe Thomas; Mark C Wilson; Carol A Aschenbrener Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Harry B Burke; Albert Hoang; Dorothy Becher; Paul Fontelo; Fang Liu; Mark Stephens; Louis N Pangaro; Laura L Sessums; Patrick O'Malley; Nancy S Baxi; Christopher W Bunt; Vincent F Capaldi; Julie M Chen; Barbara A Cooper; David A Djuric; Joshua A Hodge; Shawn Kane; Charles Magee; Zizette R Makary; Renee M Mallory; Thomas Miller; Adam Saperstein; Jessica Servey; Ronald W Gimbel Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Dorsa Mavedatnia; Jason Tran; Irina Oltean; Vid Bijelić; Felipe Moretti; Sarah Lawrence; Dina El Demellawy Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 4.241