Documentation guidelines revisited: the basic elements.

PubMed · 11712636

Documentation guidelines revisited: the basic elements.

Abstract

There are potentially 25 elements to consider when making a decision about the level of history taken during the encounter. Many experts have offered ways of organizing and categorizing the different elements of the history as a component of the E/M services. Some are quite simple; others are complex. The CPT-DG explanation gives titles to the different levels of history: Problem Focused, Expanded Problem Focused, Detailed, and Comprehensive. These titles are helpful in understanding what type of history has been obtained, but a little hard to remember when grading the history and deciding on the proper E/M code. The grids on page 672 simplify the process of deciding what level of history was recorded and what level of E/M service is proper to submit. The number in each column indicates the minimum number of elements of the history components necessary to reach the E/M code in each row. These charts are not complete for grading the entire patient encounter, as the examination data and the medical decision-making are not yet included. Although the CC, HPI, ROS, and PFSH have been discussed separately. They are, in fact, a group that together determines the level of history in the medical record. The different levels of history-Problem Focused, Expanded Problem Focused, Detailed, and Comprehensive-are derived when each component of the history is evaluated as a group. How to select the proper code will be a separate discussion after all the components of the examination are reviewed. After all, that is the purpose of the DGs-to help the provider select the proper level of service. Upcoming articles in this series will discuss the examination, medical decision-making, and how to assimilate all the information and choose the proper E/M code.

Explore related subjects

Documentation Forms and Records Control Humans Medical Records Optometry Practice Guidelines as Topic Prospective Payment System Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

2001. Documentation guidelines revisited: the basic elements.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11712636/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Shari Eppel.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Documentation↗

PubMed2003

ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: dispensing and administration--2002.

Results of the 2002 ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings that pertain to dispensing and administration are presented. A stratified random sample of pharmacy directors at 1101 general and children's medical-surgical hospitals in the United States were surveyed by mail. SMG Marketing Group, Inc., supplied data on hospital characteristics; the survey sample was drawn from SMG's hospital database. The response rate was 46.7%. During 2002, both inpatient and outpatient hours of service increased compared with 2001. Paradoxically, there was an 8.5% decrease in pharmacy staffing and a 7% vacancy rate, suggesting that pharmacists are busier. Most hospitals (80%) had a centralized inpatient dispensing system, but 44% were planning to become more decentralized. Automated dispensing cabinets were used by 58% of hospitals with decentralized drug distribution systems. Most hospitals (81.4%) dispensed more than three quarters of oral doses as unit doses and 63.3% of injectable doses to non-critical care patients, increases from 1999. A large percentage of hospitals (89%) repackaged both oral and injectable medications. More hospitals were repackaging medications than three years ago, primarily because of lack of commercial availability. Approximately 20% of pharmacies either partially or completely outsourced drug preparation activities. Nurses administered medications in virtually all hospitals (99.7%). Despite widespread recommendations to use bar-code technology to check and document doses administered, only 1.5% of hospitals used this technology, an increase from 1.1% in 1999. Nearly two thirds of hospitals used computer-generated medication administration records. While pharmaceutical services are expanding, workforce issues continue to challenge pharmacists trying to maintain and enhance safe medication systems. Safe systems continue to be in place in most hospitals, but the adoption of new technology to improve safety is slow.

Documentation↗

PubMed2003

Nursing documentation time during implementation of an electronic medical record.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, within the context of all nursing duties, the amount of time nurses spend on documentation during the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) on an intrapartum unit. BACKGROUND: Increased documentation needs during EMR implementation may necessitate increased staffing requirements in an already labor-intensive and demanding environment. METHODS: A work-sampling study was conducted over a 14-day study period, and 18 of 84 (21%) potential 4-hour observation periods were selected. During each period, a single observer made 120 observations and, on locating a specific nurse, immediately recorded that nurse's activity on a standardized and validated instrument. Categories of nursing activities included documentation, bedside care, bedside supportive care, nonbedside care, and nonpatient care. RESULTS: A total of 2160 observations were made. The total percentage of nursing time spent for documentation was 15.8%, 10.6% on paper and 5.2% on the computer. The percentage of time spent on documentation was independently associated with day versus night shifts (19.2% vs 12.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite charting concurrently on both paper and computer, the amount of time spent on documentation was not excessive, and was consistent with previous studies in which neither electronic nor "double charting" occurred.

Documentation↗