Physician Documentation Deficiencies in Abdominal Ultrasound Reports: Frequency, Characteristics, and Financial Impact

被引:33
作者
Duszak, Richard, Jr. [1 ,2 ]
Nossal, Michael [3 ]
Schofield, Lyle [3 ]
Picus, Daniel [4 ]
机构
[1] Mids Imaging & Therapeut, Memphis, TN 38120 USA
[2] Univ Tennessee, Ctr Hlth Sci, Memphis, TN 38163 USA
[3] CodeRyte, Bethesda, MD USA
[4] Mallinckrodt Inst Radiol, St Louis, MO USA
关键词
Abdominal ultrasound; radiologist reporting; physician documentation deficiencies; CPT coding; natural language processing; ACCURACY; RESIDENTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jacr.2012.01.006
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the frequency, characteristics, and financial impact of physician documentation deficiencies in abdominal ultrasound reports. Methods: Using a multi-institutional coding and billing database and natural language processing software, 12,699,502 radiology reports from 37 practices were used to identify and analyze abdominal ultrasound reports. Using standard Current Procedural Terminology (R) (CPT (R)) criteria, examinations were categorized as complete (all 8 required elements documented) or limited (<8 elements). Assuming incomplete documentation, examinations were categorized as very likely, likely, or possibly complete depending on whether a minimum of 7, 6, or 5 elements were reported. Frequency and financial impact were assessed using all 3 models, and presumed documentation deficiencies were characterized. Results: Of 336,062 abdominal ultrasound reports by 1,136 radiologists, 252,478 (75.1%) documented all 8 elements for CPT coding as complete examinations, 25,925 (7.7%) documented 7 elements, 20,559 (5.6%) documented 6 elements, 17,521 (4.8%) documented 5 elements, and 49,579 (13.5%) documented <= 4 elements. For very likely, likely, and possibly complete examination models, deficiencies were present in 9.3%, 15.5%, and 20.2% of cases, resulting in 2.5%, 4.2%, and 5.5% decreases in legitimate professional payments. The spleen (41.2%) was the most frequent element neglected. Of 106,168 examinations titled complete, only 92,824 (87.4%) fulfilled complete CPT criteria. In 221,887 (60.6%), examination titles were clearly erroneous or too ambiguous for code assignment. Documentation deficiencies were less frequent for high-volume radiologists (P < .0001). Conclusions: Incomplete physician documentation in abdominal ultrasound reports is common (9.3%-20.2% of cases) and results in 2.5% to 5.5% in lost professional income. Structured reporting may improve documentation and mitigate lost revenue.
引用
收藏
页码:403 / 408
页数:6
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
American College of Radiology, 2006, ULTR COD US GUID 200
[2]  
American College of Radiology American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, ACR AIUM PRACT GUID
[3]  
American Medical Association, 2010, CURR PROC TERM CPT 2
[4]  
American Medical Association, 2004, CPT 2005 CHANG INS V
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Handbook of Natural Language Processing and Machine Translation: DARPA Global Autonomous Language Exploitation
[6]   The Radiology Report as Seen by Radiologists and Referring Clinicians: Results of the COVER and ROVER Surveys [J].
Bosmans, Jan M. L. ;
Weyler, Joost J. ;
De Schepper, Arthur M. ;
Parizel, Paul M. .
RADIOLOGY, 2011, 259 (01) :184-195
[7]  
Cerrito Patricia B, 2008, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, P1239
[8]  
Duszak Richard Jr, 2009, J Am Coll Radiol, V6, P613, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.05.017
[9]  
Duszak Richard Jr, 2006, J Am Coll Radiol, V3, P550, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2006.03.019
[10]  
Duszak Richard Jr, 2006, J Am Coll Radiol, V3, P369, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2006.01.016