Browsing by Author "Musser, R Clayton"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Implementation of Changes to Medical Student Documentation at Duke University Health System: Balancing Education With Service.(Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2021-06) Gagliardi, Jane P; Bonanno, Brian; McPeek Hinz, Eugenia R; Musser, R Clayton; Knudsen, Nancy W; Palko, Michael; McNair, Felice; Lee, Hui-Jie; Clay, Alison SPurpose
When the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changed policies about medical student documentation, students with proper supervision may now document their history, physical exam, and medical decision making in the electronic health record (EHR) for billable encounters. Since documentation is a core entrustable professional activity for medical students, the authors sought to evaluate student opportunities for documentation and feedback across and between clerkships.Method
In February 2018, a multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to implement student documentation at Duke University Health System, including educating trainees and supervisors, tracking EHR usage, and enforcing CMS compliance. From August 2018 to August 2019, locations and types of student-involved services (student-faculty or student-resident-faculty) were tracked using billing data from attestation statements. Student end-of-clerkship evaluations included opportunity for documentation and receipt of feedback. Since documentation was not allowed before August 2018, it was not possible to compare with prior student experiences.Results
In the first half of the academic year, 6,972 patient encounters were billed as student-involved services, 52% (n = 3,612) in the inpatient setting and 47% (n = 3,257) in the outpatient setting. Most (74%) of the inpatient encounters also involved residents, and most (92%) of outpatient encounters were student-teaching physician only.Approximately 90% of students indicated having had opportunity to document in the EHR across clerkships, except for procedure-based clerkships such as surgery and obstetrics. Receipt of feedback was present along with opportunity for documentation more than 85% of the time on services using evaluation and management coding. Most students (> 90%) viewed their documentation as having a moderate or high impact on patient care.Conclusions
Changes to student documentation were successfully implemented and adopted; changes met both compliance and education needs within the health system without resulting in potential abuses of student work for service.Item Open Access Provider Interaction With an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis.(Journal of medical Internet research, 2023-05) Ma, Jessica E; Lowe, Jared; Berkowitz, Callie; Kim, Azalea; Togo, Ira; Musser, R Clayton; Fischer, Jonathan; Shah, Kevin; Ibrahim, Salam; Bosworth, Hayden B; Totten, Annette M; Dolor, RowenaBackground
Advance care planning (ACP) improves patient-provider communication and aligns care to patient values, preferences, and goals. Within a multisite Meta-network Learning and Research Center ACP study, one health system deployed an electronic health record (EHR) notification and algorithm to alert providers about patients potentially appropriate for ACP and the clinical study.Objective
The aim of the study is to describe the implementation and usage of an EHR notification for referring patients to an ACP study, evaluate the association of notifications with study referrals and engagement in ACP, and assess provider interactions with and perspectives on the notifications.Methods
A secondary analysis assessed provider usage and their response to the notification (eg, acknowledge, dismiss, or engage patient in ACP conversation and refer patient to the clinical study). We evaluated all patients identified by the EHR algorithm during the Meta-network Learning and Research Center ACP study. Descriptive statistics compared patients referred to the study to those who were not referred to the study. Health care utilization, hospice referrals, and mortality as well as documentation and billing for ACP and related legal documents are reported. We evaluated associations between notifications with provider actions (ie, referral to study, ACP not documentation, and ACP billing). Provider free-text comments in the notifications were summarized qualitatively. Providers were surveyed on their satisfaction with the notification.Results
Among the 2877 patients identified by the EHR algorithm over 20 months, 17,047 unique notifications were presented to 45 providers in 6 clinics, who then referred 290 (10%) patients. Providers had a median of 269 (IQR 65-552) total notifications, and patients had a median of 4 (IQR 2-8). Patients with more (over 5) notifications were less likely to be referred to the study than those with fewer notifications (57/1092, 5.2% vs 233/1785, 13.1%; P<.001). The most common free-text comment on the notification was lack of time. Providers who referred patients to the study were more likely to document ACP and submit ACP billing codes (P<.001). In the survey, 11 providers would recommend the notification (n=7, 64%); however, the notification impacted clinical workflow (n=9, 82%) and was difficult to navigate (n=6, 55%).Conclusions
An EHR notification can be implemented to remind providers to both perform ACP conversations and refer patients to a clinical study. There were diminishing returns after the fifth EHR notification where additional notifications did not lead to more trial referrals, ACP documentation, or ACP billing. Creation and optimization of EHR notifications for study referrals and ACP should consider the provider user, their workflow, and alert fatigue to improve implementation and adoption.Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03577002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03577002.