In 2005 California expanded the CURES program to include all Schedule II-IV prescriptions dispensed. These medications have to be reported to the State Attorney Generals office who maintains a database of medications dispensed. This includes controlled substances directly dispensed from, Pharmacies, Doctors offices, clinics, and Emergency Departments that give out the to-go six pack of Vicodin when patients present after pharmacies are closed. Reports to the CURES program are done using a direct dispensing log that is faxed weekly to the CURES program.
Medical Providers and Pharmacist have been able to tap into this database by requesting an activity report on patients under their care. What they get is a print-out of every controlled Rx filled by the patient regardless of the source. In the past this report took several days to weeks to obtain. It was little use for the Provider who is trying to figure out if the person in front of them is filling multiple scripts from multiple sources. It worked well for ongoing care of repeat patients. I have seen it work well with some of our regular patients who return like clockwork to the ED several times a month. When confronted with the report of scripts they have filled recently and neglected to mention when listing their medications most give up knowing they have been had and you don’t see them again.
Soon the availability of activity reports will be online instantly via the California Attorney Generals web site. Instant access to a patients controlled substance prescription activity will give providers knowledge if they being lied to, used, played, to feed a habit or supply someone with an income who is reselling their meds. For those with legitimate pain conditions who are not seeking medication from multiple sources it should help them by removing the cloud of suspicion that follows them when seeking pain relief.
This effort is being funded partially by the Troy and Alana Pack Foundation founded by Bob Pack who’s 7 and 10 year old children were killed by a driver under the influence of prescription drugs obtained from multiple doctors. The Wall Street Journal recently had an article about the program.
Its about time.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Disparities in Healthcare and Staff Discipline at UC Hospitals
The University of California Hospitals have been involved for many years in studying and pointing out the Disparities in Health care delivery and access in America between ethnic groups, genders, and other perceived disadvantaged groups. All have the same theme, disadvantaged or people of color get worse health care given the same conditions. All one has to do is Google “Disparities in Health care” and UC California and you will be treated to a whole host of studies, articles, talks, or seminars where UC researchers, mainly physicians, point out these disparities. UC seems to have taken the lead in many respects in pointing out the problem. That being said, one would think they would set an example within their own institution on equality. The tremendous body of research and the recent revelation about the disparities in disciplinary action between UC Physicians and non physicians for patient privacy breaches at UCLA Medical Center reminds me of that old saying about people in glass houses and throwing stones.
In case anyone missed it, a number of employees at UCLA Medical Center were caught recently peeking into the electronic records of Britney Spears and other celebrities. This has not been an isolated event as media reports and the citation and plan of correction from the California Department of Public Health revel that it has been going on for some time on a rather large scale. In regards to the Spears case, California Health Line reported ..
The Department of Public Health said 53 employees, including 14 doctors, at UCLA Medical Center breached Spears' records on two occasions. None of the physicians quit or were fired, while 18 other employees resigned, retired or were dismissed after the violations were discovered, according to UCLA data.
I guess I am not surprised by hypocrisy in one of the ivory towers of Academic Healthcare but I am surprised that they would hand a gift to the cases of workers that were fired. If the fired workers unions cannot capitalize on the inequity in treatment to the benefit of those fired then they are not representing their workers well. For a disciplinary action to prevail in arbitration with public or unionized employees it must be based on “Just Cause”. Over the years Arbitrators in hearing disciplinary cases have agreed that to establish Just Cause there are 7 tests that should be met. One of the 7 tests is equal treatment or discipline for similar offenses. It also can open Pandora’s box to a discrimination case if the person treated less equal is a member of a minority group or other protected class.
UC has an explanation for the treatment inequity. Physicians are peer reviewed in disciplinary cases. Everyone else deals with HR. They acknowledge that Physicians historically have been treated more leniently. Should they be? One could make a case that the the expectations and thus penalties for physicians should be higher than less educated staff.
David Feinberg, CEO of the UCLA Hospital System, said, "Historically, doctors have been treated in a way that may be more lenient than nonphysicians, and we will address that."
In their attempt to address the problem of privacy breaches and how to respond equitably to all offenders Gene Brock, UC Chancellor, has set up a committee of 11 people from various UC campus to come up with recommendations. 7 of the 11 are Physicians leaders, the rest are HR or Public Information staff. No Nurses or ancillary staff leaders. More stones for their glass houses.
In case anyone missed it, a number of employees at UCLA Medical Center were caught recently peeking into the electronic records of Britney Spears and other celebrities. This has not been an isolated event as media reports and the citation and plan of correction from the California Department of Public Health revel that it has been going on for some time on a rather large scale. In regards to the Spears case, California Health Line reported ..
The Department of Public Health said 53 employees, including 14 doctors, at UCLA Medical Center breached Spears' records on two occasions. None of the physicians quit or were fired, while 18 other employees resigned, retired or were dismissed after the violations were discovered, according to UCLA data.
I guess I am not surprised by hypocrisy in one of the ivory towers of Academic Healthcare but I am surprised that they would hand a gift to the cases of workers that were fired. If the fired workers unions cannot capitalize on the inequity in treatment to the benefit of those fired then they are not representing their workers well. For a disciplinary action to prevail in arbitration with public or unionized employees it must be based on “Just Cause”. Over the years Arbitrators in hearing disciplinary cases have agreed that to establish Just Cause there are 7 tests that should be met. One of the 7 tests is equal treatment or discipline for similar offenses. It also can open Pandora’s box to a discrimination case if the person treated less equal is a member of a minority group or other protected class.
UC has an explanation for the treatment inequity. Physicians are peer reviewed in disciplinary cases. Everyone else deals with HR. They acknowledge that Physicians historically have been treated more leniently. Should they be? One could make a case that the the expectations and thus penalties for physicians should be higher than less educated staff.
David Feinberg, CEO of the UCLA Hospital System, said, "Historically, doctors have been treated in a way that may be more lenient than nonphysicians, and we will address that."
In their attempt to address the problem of privacy breaches and how to respond equitably to all offenders Gene Brock, UC Chancellor, has set up a committee of 11 people from various UC campus to come up with recommendations. 7 of the 11 are Physicians leaders, the rest are HR or Public Information staff. No Nurses or ancillary staff leaders. More stones for their glass houses.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
RME: Rapid Mediocre Evaluation
Rapid Medical Evaluation is one of the latest buzz words for programs promoted used by ED Physician groups to promote faster ED throughput and market their groups to hospitals. Its similar to “Provider is Triage”, “Triage Bypass”, and “Door to Doc” programs some of which I have written about before and so have others here. RME is proprietary to a California ED group, California Emergency Physicians (CEP).
The premise goes something like this. Patients presenting to the ED can be rapidly divided into 2 groups the sick and less sick based on a quick look rather than a full triage. This is done by bringing every patient upon presentation immediatly back to a intake area staffed with a physician or more commonly a PA and a Nurse or in some cases only a PA, tech, and unit clerk. After a quick focused interview by the provider the patient is put into one of the 2 categories. The sick group goes to the main ED for treatment. The less sick group may either be discharged on the spot or sent off to various areas for lab or radiology studies. The less sick group does not own a bed and rarely gets undressed. The less sick group is not assigned to a Nurse in most cases. They move about the hospital similar to the way you would move from area to area in a clinic setting basically on their own and once all the results are in they are dispo’ed. The benefits reported are quicker door to provider times, fewer Left Without Being Seen patients, and more revenue for the hospitals and ED groups.
Some of this sounds good but lets peel back the onion and look beyond the marketing aspects and flashy improvement of ED metric’s that some of these programs report. Since these programs are primarily focused on the low acuity patients do they really do anything about ED overcrowding. The primary reason ED’s are in crisis is not a large volume of low acuity patients. If there is a back up of low acuity patients waiting to get into fast track is that a crisis that endangers patient safety, usually not. It’s the high acuity patients and the difficulties in dispositioning those patients that is the majority of the problem. Lack of inpatient beds or staff, lack of specialist coverage, lack of primary care, and an aging population being the main culprits. ENA has a well refrenced position statement on ED overcrowding that examines the issue.
None of these programs are consistent with national standards for Triage which usually gets eliminated or stripped down when RME is implemented. Both ENA and ACEP have endorsed a 5 level triage system. ENA and ACEP have a joint position statement here. ENA at their 2007 meeting specifically endorsed either the 5 level Canadian Triage Acuity System (CTAS) or the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) Historically ED triage systems have been 3 level and the research has shown that the 3 level systems have poor reliability and predictive value where as the 5 level systems have good predictive value. So now were supposed to believe that a 2 level system is the way to go. Perhaps the biggest flaw is the assumption that the majority of ED visits can be can be reduced to a quick look and a 3 minute interview a couple of tests, a quick prescription (likely not indicated) and disposition out the door. Many low acuity presentations are obvious but you will get burned by practicing like most are. Elderly and special needs populations even when presenting with a minor stated complaint need an history, physical exam, vital signs, and Nursing assessment.
Administrators see these programs as a way to reduce Nursing hours. CEP claims in their web site that the less sick patients do not need to be assigned to a Nurse. Kind of an end run around the California Nursing Ratio’s
“A corollary of RME to rapid care is the more efficient utilization of nurses and the elimination of many nurse hours that are required for compliance with many regulated state and healthcare system nurse:patient ratios. For example, by seeing, caring for and discharging a patient directly, and eliminating the need to count that patient as being in a bed in the ED, significant nurse hours may be reduced in the ED. Nurses find professional satisfaction with a career in an efficiently run ED, thus lowering hospital recruitment and retention costs”
So if patients only need ancillary testing they wont get counted in the Nursing Ratio’s? The promoters want it both ways. They want to end the Nurse Patient relationship with the less sick patients but in the real world a Nurse gets assigned many of the tasks to process the patient in and out and most regulatory agencies require some form of Nurse involvement. I have news for CEP. If a Nurse assess, gives medication (even Tylenol), performs a treatment, draws blood, performs a breathing treatment, or discharges a patient a Nurse Patient relationship is established and the patient is counted in the ratio’s, at least in California. You can not reduce Nursing to a series of tasks as much as you’d like to.
But what about the numbers, these programs produce great numbers! Yes, some do, especially if you don’t have a good understanding of statistics and view all patients as equal. The focus in the promotion is 3 primarily ED metric’s, LWBS, Door to Provider, and Patient Satisfaction scores with Patient Satisfaction scores being one of the biggest drivers. Because most high acuity patients get excluded from the satisfaction surveys the scores represents a skewed representation of what an ED does. The published metric's I have seen at the links here and others are relatively short duration measurements with no outcome studies. They avoid the subject of return ED visits rates, missed findings, morbidity and mortality from doing an inadequate exam or work-up or having the patient seen by a PA instead of a MD, or the negative effects of eliminating an effective Triage system. If you discharge patients before they have a chance to leave without being seen your LWBS rate will decline. You can drive down the door to provider time by putting the provider at the front end of the process but what does this do for the back end high acuity patients. Patients generally will be happier if waits are reduced, even if the care is sloppy. And finally, most of these programs are implemented simultaneously with other process changes such as bedside registration, expanded fast track capacity and hours, and immediate bedding which have been shown to be very effective. My experience is that the credit for the improvement is claimed by the RME type processes promoters when it would more accurately go to the bedside registration, expanded fast track, and immediate bedding processes The rest is window dressing and mediocre care designed to sell the services of the ED group promoting it and buff satisfaction scores.
The premise goes something like this. Patients presenting to the ED can be rapidly divided into 2 groups the sick and less sick based on a quick look rather than a full triage. This is done by bringing every patient upon presentation immediatly back to a intake area staffed with a physician or more commonly a PA and a Nurse or in some cases only a PA, tech, and unit clerk. After a quick focused interview by the provider the patient is put into one of the 2 categories. The sick group goes to the main ED for treatment. The less sick group may either be discharged on the spot or sent off to various areas for lab or radiology studies. The less sick group does not own a bed and rarely gets undressed. The less sick group is not assigned to a Nurse in most cases. They move about the hospital similar to the way you would move from area to area in a clinic setting basically on their own and once all the results are in they are dispo’ed. The benefits reported are quicker door to provider times, fewer Left Without Being Seen patients, and more revenue for the hospitals and ED groups.
Some of this sounds good but lets peel back the onion and look beyond the marketing aspects and flashy improvement of ED metric’s that some of these programs report. Since these programs are primarily focused on the low acuity patients do they really do anything about ED overcrowding. The primary reason ED’s are in crisis is not a large volume of low acuity patients. If there is a back up of low acuity patients waiting to get into fast track is that a crisis that endangers patient safety, usually not. It’s the high acuity patients and the difficulties in dispositioning those patients that is the majority of the problem. Lack of inpatient beds or staff, lack of specialist coverage, lack of primary care, and an aging population being the main culprits. ENA has a well refrenced position statement on ED overcrowding that examines the issue.
None of these programs are consistent with national standards for Triage which usually gets eliminated or stripped down when RME is implemented. Both ENA and ACEP have endorsed a 5 level triage system. ENA and ACEP have a joint position statement here. ENA at their 2007 meeting specifically endorsed either the 5 level Canadian Triage Acuity System (CTAS) or the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) Historically ED triage systems have been 3 level and the research has shown that the 3 level systems have poor reliability and predictive value where as the 5 level systems have good predictive value. So now were supposed to believe that a 2 level system is the way to go. Perhaps the biggest flaw is the assumption that the majority of ED visits can be can be reduced to a quick look and a 3 minute interview a couple of tests, a quick prescription (likely not indicated) and disposition out the door. Many low acuity presentations are obvious but you will get burned by practicing like most are. Elderly and special needs populations even when presenting with a minor stated complaint need an history, physical exam, vital signs, and Nursing assessment.
Administrators see these programs as a way to reduce Nursing hours. CEP claims in their web site that the less sick patients do not need to be assigned to a Nurse. Kind of an end run around the California Nursing Ratio’s
“A corollary of RME to rapid care is the more efficient utilization of nurses and the elimination of many nurse hours that are required for compliance with many regulated state and healthcare system nurse:patient ratios. For example, by seeing, caring for and discharging a patient directly, and eliminating the need to count that patient as being in a bed in the ED, significant nurse hours may be reduced in the ED. Nurses find professional satisfaction with a career in an efficiently run ED, thus lowering hospital recruitment and retention costs”
So if patients only need ancillary testing they wont get counted in the Nursing Ratio’s? The promoters want it both ways. They want to end the Nurse Patient relationship with the less sick patients but in the real world a Nurse gets assigned many of the tasks to process the patient in and out and most regulatory agencies require some form of Nurse involvement. I have news for CEP. If a Nurse assess, gives medication (even Tylenol), performs a treatment, draws blood, performs a breathing treatment, or discharges a patient a Nurse Patient relationship is established and the patient is counted in the ratio’s, at least in California. You can not reduce Nursing to a series of tasks as much as you’d like to.
But what about the numbers, these programs produce great numbers! Yes, some do, especially if you don’t have a good understanding of statistics and view all patients as equal. The focus in the promotion is 3 primarily ED metric’s, LWBS, Door to Provider, and Patient Satisfaction scores with Patient Satisfaction scores being one of the biggest drivers. Because most high acuity patients get excluded from the satisfaction surveys the scores represents a skewed representation of what an ED does. The published metric's I have seen at the links here and others are relatively short duration measurements with no outcome studies. They avoid the subject of return ED visits rates, missed findings, morbidity and mortality from doing an inadequate exam or work-up or having the patient seen by a PA instead of a MD, or the negative effects of eliminating an effective Triage system. If you discharge patients before they have a chance to leave without being seen your LWBS rate will decline. You can drive down the door to provider time by putting the provider at the front end of the process but what does this do for the back end high acuity patients. Patients generally will be happier if waits are reduced, even if the care is sloppy. And finally, most of these programs are implemented simultaneously with other process changes such as bedside registration, expanded fast track capacity and hours, and immediate bedding which have been shown to be very effective. My experience is that the credit for the improvement is claimed by the RME type processes promoters when it would more accurately go to the bedside registration, expanded fast track, and immediate bedding processes The rest is window dressing and mediocre care designed to sell the services of the ED group promoting it and buff satisfaction scores.
Friday, January 18, 2008
MAB: Managing Assaultive Behavior - in the Trauma Room
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Who are the real Villains in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.
Ever hear the expression, Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. In the case of the well publicized death of a 17 year old from LA who while being treated for Leukemia went into Liver failure and was “denied” a transplant by CIGNA Insurance, that appears have happened. I won’t rehash the entire story as it is all over the media and has entered the health care debate at State and National levels. One candidate, John Edwards, has made it part of his campaign and advocates of “Single Payer” which is code for “Government run and taxpayer financed Health care” are using Nataline’s case as their poster child for the cause. The father appeared at a rally the other day and was quoted as saying “CIGNA killed Nataline”. The family has retained infamous looser lawyer, Mark Geragos, in their almost certain lawsuit against CIGNA. He and others are requesting that CIGNA execs be charged with murder.
Maggie Mahar has written one of the most balanced pieces on this issue titled “Bad cases make bad law” its an eye opener for those who haven't looked at this in depth.
“The fact that Nataline’s case had gone sour on her doctors’ watch might have made them less than objective. I’m not suggesting that the doctors were worried about a malpractice suit: following bone marrow transplants, patients are very susceptible to complications. There is no indication that the physicians caring for her did anything wrong. Nevertheless, at least one prominent palliative care specialist has told me that sometimes she has to protect patients from surgeons who want to try to repair a failed procedure —with yet another surgery. “They can’t bear the failure—they want to make it right. This is what they have been trained to do.” But they are not necessarily thinking about what is best for the patient”.
Two things stood out to me in this story. Those being were, is this patient even a candidate for a liver transplant and if she was why did not UCLA do the operation rather than wait for insurance approval. CIGNA had approved her bone marrow transplant which was unsuccessful. UCLA certainly did not need CIGNA’s approval for the transplant operation, only for the payment. Looking over the exclusion criteria for liver transplants from 2 other facilities that have good reputations in the transplant area I noted that this patient was not a candidate. Sanford who’s criteria is listed here and California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco who’s criteria is listed here both exclude patients with non-hepatic malignancies. I could not find UCLA’s criteria in any searches.
I nominate the following as the Villains in this case
1. UCLA medical center for raising this families hopes when she would not of been a candidate for the operation at most transplant centers. They get a double nomination for not performing the operation if they felt it could of saved this girls life. A hospital does not need approval from a 3rd party insurer to perform a lifesaving operation. Considering the narrow window of availability of livers and this patients grave condition If UCLA felt she could have benefited they should have performed the operation immediately upon the availability of a donor liver and appealed the denial. Instead UCLA asked the family for a $75000 deposit to do the procedure which they did not have. Most appeals eventually end up getting paid. Even if they were not paid UCLA could have performed the case as charity care and been the good guys. UCLA is infamous for its excessive end of life care with no better results than more conservative like institutions. This is likely being driven by their excess bed capacity and a high percentage of specialist. Its all well documented here in this study by Drartmouth University.
2. The organizations promoting single payer who are exploiting this case and the family for the cause. In particular, one that I am a member of, the California Nurses Association. They have done a lot for nurses at the bargaining table and getting Nursing Ratios but their political agenda is way to Micheal Moorish. I cannot remember CNA ever soliciting its members on whether they even support single payer before devoting our dues money to that cause. Emails to their leadership expressing an opposite point of view are ignored. CNA members are some of the highest paid nurses in the country. That would not of happened under single payer where government sets the reimbursement.
3. Politicians and slimball lawyers led by slimball in chief John Edwards. Politicians do not normally piss me off, Edwards is an exception. He made his millions by suing OB doctors in cerebral palsy cases for not doing c-sections. He used junk science and courtroom theatrics imitating a fetus stuck inside the mother yelling to get out to sway juries. Note to Edwards, most recent research has shown that CP is not related to delayed C-sections but lets not let facts get in the way of a good story, especially when big money is at stake. Edwards, the champion of the poor, is well known for giving speeches on poverty in America for 50,000 a pop. One recently for none other than the University of California at Davis. You’d think the University of California would have better things to do with taxpayers and students money, apparently not.
I hate to be in a position defending an Insurance company. I generally despise them and as Maggie Mahar states
“Meanwhile there are so many clear-cut problems in our for-profit private insurance industry that should be investigated in a court of law. I would like to see states take insurers to court for the way they “cherry-pick” their customers, shunning the sick, and raising premiums on customers who become seriously ill. Often, insurers scour their records looking for some scrap of evidence that the patients’ illness may have been caused by a pre-existing condition. Insurers also write policies in such a way that it is very difficult to know, for certain, what will be covered—and they advertise “super-saver” policies that contain so many holes that they don’t even deserve to called “insurance.”
Another tip for the single payer crowd would be pick your battles. Being wrong and going public with it in such a high profile case and trying to capitalize on other peoples tragedies ruins your credibility for legitimate issues.
Maggie Mahar has written one of the most balanced pieces on this issue titled “Bad cases make bad law” its an eye opener for those who haven't looked at this in depth.
“The fact that Nataline’s case had gone sour on her doctors’ watch might have made them less than objective. I’m not suggesting that the doctors were worried about a malpractice suit: following bone marrow transplants, patients are very susceptible to complications. There is no indication that the physicians caring for her did anything wrong. Nevertheless, at least one prominent palliative care specialist has told me that sometimes she has to protect patients from surgeons who want to try to repair a failed procedure —with yet another surgery. “They can’t bear the failure—they want to make it right. This is what they have been trained to do.” But they are not necessarily thinking about what is best for the patient”.
Two things stood out to me in this story. Those being were, is this patient even a candidate for a liver transplant and if she was why did not UCLA do the operation rather than wait for insurance approval. CIGNA had approved her bone marrow transplant which was unsuccessful. UCLA certainly did not need CIGNA’s approval for the transplant operation, only for the payment. Looking over the exclusion criteria for liver transplants from 2 other facilities that have good reputations in the transplant area I noted that this patient was not a candidate. Sanford who’s criteria is listed here and California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco who’s criteria is listed here both exclude patients with non-hepatic malignancies. I could not find UCLA’s criteria in any searches.
I nominate the following as the Villains in this case
1. UCLA medical center for raising this families hopes when she would not of been a candidate for the operation at most transplant centers. They get a double nomination for not performing the operation if they felt it could of saved this girls life. A hospital does not need approval from a 3rd party insurer to perform a lifesaving operation. Considering the narrow window of availability of livers and this patients grave condition If UCLA felt she could have benefited they should have performed the operation immediately upon the availability of a donor liver and appealed the denial. Instead UCLA asked the family for a $75000 deposit to do the procedure which they did not have. Most appeals eventually end up getting paid. Even if they were not paid UCLA could have performed the case as charity care and been the good guys. UCLA is infamous for its excessive end of life care with no better results than more conservative like institutions. This is likely being driven by their excess bed capacity and a high percentage of specialist. Its all well documented here in this study by Drartmouth University.
2. The organizations promoting single payer who are exploiting this case and the family for the cause. In particular, one that I am a member of, the California Nurses Association. They have done a lot for nurses at the bargaining table and getting Nursing Ratios but their political agenda is way to Micheal Moorish. I cannot remember CNA ever soliciting its members on whether they even support single payer before devoting our dues money to that cause. Emails to their leadership expressing an opposite point of view are ignored. CNA members are some of the highest paid nurses in the country. That would not of happened under single payer where government sets the reimbursement.
3. Politicians and slimball lawyers led by slimball in chief John Edwards. Politicians do not normally piss me off, Edwards is an exception. He made his millions by suing OB doctors in cerebral palsy cases for not doing c-sections. He used junk science and courtroom theatrics imitating a fetus stuck inside the mother yelling to get out to sway juries. Note to Edwards, most recent research has shown that CP is not related to delayed C-sections but lets not let facts get in the way of a good story, especially when big money is at stake. Edwards, the champion of the poor, is well known for giving speeches on poverty in America for 50,000 a pop. One recently for none other than the University of California at Davis. You’d think the University of California would have better things to do with taxpayers and students money, apparently not.
I hate to be in a position defending an Insurance company. I generally despise them and as Maggie Mahar states
“Meanwhile there are so many clear-cut problems in our for-profit private insurance industry that should be investigated in a court of law. I would like to see states take insurers to court for the way they “cherry-pick” their customers, shunning the sick, and raising premiums on customers who become seriously ill. Often, insurers scour their records looking for some scrap of evidence that the patients’ illness may have been caused by a pre-existing condition. Insurers also write policies in such a way that it is very difficult to know, for certain, what will be covered—and they advertise “super-saver” policies that contain so many holes that they don’t even deserve to called “insurance.”
Another tip for the single payer crowd would be pick your battles. Being wrong and going public with it in such a high profile case and trying to capitalize on other peoples tragedies ruins your credibility for legitimate issues.
Monday, December 10, 2007
How has the Patient Satisfaction push effected your practice
In the past 2 years Patient Satisfaction scores have led to a major change in priorities in Emergency Departments. I have written about some of the ways ED’s are changing here. Many feel the patient survey is biased toward the less sick (read Ron Elfenbein's editorial in ep monthly) patient because it excludes admits and transfers and is based on relatively a small percentage of returns from very low acuity patients. Regardless, survey results are on the Web and in the newspaper which can lead to a major competitive advantage or disadvantage depending on where you fall. Perception is more important than reality in our sound bite world. Nothing evidences that more than some of the consulting groups offering seminars on how to change the patients perception (not the care itself) of their experience. Have you been studerized? Another example is the willingness of some hospitals, Sutter Health Alta Bates Hospital in this case, to target 3 employees from each unit who are "Not onboard with our service expectations" for disciplinary action to improve their Press Ganey scores.
Perceptions aside, has this emphasis changed practice for the better or worse in Emergency Departments? Below is an unscientific survey for “Providers” regarding how the patient satisfaction push in Emergency Departments has effected your practice in the past 2 years. I am starting with Providers but will follow-up with Nurses and Managers. I have weighted the score based on things generally considered good practice based on my experience. Do not consider, for the sake of clarity, other factors that have changed in the past 2 years such as new research, guidelines, institutional policies, and legal climate, only consider the effect of the Patient Satisfaction scores in your answers. Only Yes Answers get scored. Everyone starts at 0. Now lets take the test.
1. Do you see patients sooner than you did 2 years ago (quicker door to provider time)? Add 5
2. Do you cut short exams or procedures to achieve seeing new patients sooner? Subtract 5
3. Do you spend more time with your patients than you did 2 years ago? Add 5
4. Are you more likely to keep the patient informed of delays and explain procedures? Add 5
5. Are you more likely to troubleshoot delays in admission and testing to reduce the patients waiting time to admission and improve ED flow? Add 5
6. Do you provide a higher level of personal service to those who are included in the survey as opposed to those who are excluded? Subtract 10
7. Are you more likely to prescribe antibiotics upon patient request when the clinical indications suggest a viral etiology of infection or otherwise are not indicated? Subtract 10
8. Are you more likely to prescribe narcotic pain medication, stronger narcotic pain medication, or a larger quantity upon patient request when the indication is weak or a NSAID would be the better medication choice? Subtract 10
9. Are you more likely to order expensive tests such as CT Scans or MRI’s upon patient request when the indication is weak? Subtract 5
10. Are you more likely to directly dispense take home medications from the ER upon patient request, especially narcotics? Subtract 5
11. Are you more likely to tolerate disrespectful behavior or verbal abuse to avoid a complaint or negative survey? Subtract 5
12. Are you more likely to encourage or pressure Nursing or Ancillary staff to tolerate disrespectful behavior or verbal abuse to avoid a complaint or negative survey* Subtract 10
13. Are you more likely to avoid educating patients about negative health behaviors to avoid offending them and getting a negative survey? Subtract 5
14. Are you more likely to pressure Nursing to avoid educating patients about negative health behaviors to avoid offending them?* Subtract 10
15. Are you less likely to report suspected conditions such as domestic violence, child, or elder abuse to avoid angering patients and risking a negative survey?* Subtract 15
Now add up your score. Here is Murse's take on how the patient satisfaction push has effected your practice.
+5 to +20 – You are the bomb. Come work in my ED. You truly care about doing what is best for your patients and have not been pressured to make bad decisions to get a better score. You are ethical. The Nurses love working with you. Its not very likely that you’re the director of your ED group.
0 – You’re a solid practioner but you probably have been asleep for 2 years or on an extended sabbatical or trek in Tibet. Nothing effects you. Your probably the type that does not even look up from the desk when a patient is totally going off just on the other side. You operate at one speed regardless of the activity in the department. Also not likely influenced by bean counters or Pharmaceutical reps. Probably wears the same type cloths and prescribes the same type of medications you did 15 years ago. You could be an Attending in many academic medical centers riding out your tenure to retirement. The Nurses ignore you except to look at your cool vacation photo’s that you frequently load up on the department computer and show even during busy times.
-5 to -15 – You don’t like confrontation especially from bean counters or demanding patients. Have a little bit of a backbone problem. Perhaps your testicals have not fully descended if your male. Your not dangerous but just a little bit irritating. You give wishy washy answers to keep everyone happy. You like being peoples friend and generally are but are not someone to go to for support.
> - 15 – You would sell your sole to the devil. You sell out your peers for political expediency. Your either trying to impress some bean counter with the bump in scores at the expense of safe practice or you or your ER group is getting a financial bonus for improving their patient satisfaction scores which drives your actions. You probably do unnecessary procedures under the cover of poorly supported guidelines to increase your reimbursement. You likely prescribe every new expensive medication after sucking up freebie trips and dinners from the Pharmaceutical rep. You just might be the Director of your ED group. The Nurses dislike you.
*If yes to any of these questions then mandatory failure regardless of final score. Some Nurse is likely to drop a dime to on you to the State Licensing Board if you ever screw up.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Templated Charting - The Slippery Slope to Fraudulant Documentation
The other day at work I was taking care of a patient that was in an MVC. She was in spinal precautions and complained of neck, and leg pain. Our ED Physician came in and did his exam from the door way holding his Tablet PC marking off items into the Electronic T-sheet while he asked a few basic questions. He was in and out in less than a minute. Out of curiosity, I reviewed his documentation and not surprisingly there was a comprehensive assessment documented. Abdominal findings, lungs sounds, heart sounds, pupils and ocular movements, neuro exam, all beautifully documented in a long paragraph and all normal. Not bad for an exam conducted from the doorway. I watched without comment throughout the day and noticed the same general exam pattern on most of his patients and the same comprehensive documentation of his exams. About one half of the Docs in this ED practice operate in a similar way although he is the worst. Others actually perform the exams they document and coincidental, have the longest door to provider times. They are being pressured to speed up their times. Exams do take time. This same Physician above is the promoter of Triage Bypass policy being promoted at the ED I work. He claims that asking patients the same questions and doing the same exam he will do (or not do) in Triage is an unnecessary delay and negatively effects patient satisfaction scores. So now when beds are open were rushing patients back with nothing more than an eyeball assessment to make them happy and get them to the Doctor who does a 1 minute exam from the doorway and fudges the chart. Guess what, our patient satisfaction numbers are way up and our length of stay is down. Administration is happy.
Fudging charting is not isolated to Physicians and Electronic Documentation. Another ED I occasionally work at I see nurses regularly check off on the paper T-Sheet items that were not done. I even see some make up phony discharge vital signs rather than take the time to do them. I recently had a discussion with my Charge Nurse who audits charts prior to the end of the shift. She was all over me because I was not checking off the boxes which said ID Band confirmed, Bed in low position, Side rails up x 2, patient gowned, blanket provided, and including discharge vitals. I told her, the patient was a Fast Track patient and discharged within minutes of arrival, I didn’t do all those things. Doesn’t matter she said, “Just check the boxes or we get dinged”. I told her to go ahead and ding me, make my day. I’d rather get dinged for not checking boxes than falsifying a chart. My stand is being viewed as I'm just being difficult.
The question that this begs is whether the problem is with the individuals or the tool. My opinion is a poorly designed tool facilitates shortcuts in certain individuals who are either lazy, dishonest, or very uninformed about what they are charting. Templated charting, either paper or electronic, can cross the line rapidly into fraudulent charting in those individuals. I don’t think they view it as fraud and are able to rationalize their actions because they feel they are only documenting to satisfy a regulatory requirement. In the case of documenting items not done to obtain a higher billing level there is no question in my mind that fraud is occurring.
A good article, here, at AIS Health.com list some of the issues with templated electronic documentation.
"Physicians love electronic medical record (EMR) templates because they make documentation faster and easier, but abuses, such as cloning and "exploding" notes, are jeopardizing reimbursement and compliance, experts say. If too much information is replicated from one EMR to the next, there is little to distinguish patient encounters, and that undermines physician attempts to establish medical necessity — the foundation of Medicare reimbursement — and perhaps implicates quality of care."
My first example I listed is an example of an exploding note. Basically, an electronic template is pulled up for a specific complaint, a few mouse clicks is all it takes to default all values to normal and a beautiful paragraph is produced based on programming code behind the scenes listing all the elements of a comprehensive normal exam. To change the defaults you need to click a few more times either selecting common abnormal values or free text the abnormal finding in. The path of least resistance is the former.
"Cloning can work for elements of the history, but cannot and should not be used for the history of present illness, the exam or the medical decision-making portion," the compliance officer says."
Cloning refers to pulling data forward from previous visits or from another persons note, usually via copy and paste, into your note and signing it as yours. Very helpful for a long history which does not change but problematic for a physical exam that you did not do. In Academic Medical Centers its common for the Student to do the exam, the Resident pulls forward the note as theirs and on rounds the Attending does the same and signs it electronically.
Templated charting both paper and electronic has caught the attention of many in the HIM community. The American Health Information Management Association has a good paper on Guidelines for EHR Documentation to prevent Fraud. The article list many types of documentation problems and recommendations and the appendix gives real case examples.
“Electronic documentation tools offer exciting new time-saving and validity checking features designed to enhance communication for all health record users. They address traditional, well-known requirements for documentation principles, while supporting expansive new HIM capabilities. However, use of these features without appropriate management and guidelines may cause invalid auto population of data fields, manufactured documentation to enhance expected reimbursement, and other undesirable outcomes”
What is the solution? It’s certainly not to stop using templated charting or electronic charting. It won’t be long before everyone is doing it. A strong set of standards for EMR design and training is essential. Charting tools that require structured data for most exam documentation would help. Rules against copying notes of others and calling them yours and the clear understanding that if you have charted something you did not do you have committed fraud. You can report fraud here. Templated charting, if used correctly, prompts the individual to perform complete exams and documentation and can enhance patient safety.
Fudging charting is not isolated to Physicians and Electronic Documentation. Another ED I occasionally work at I see nurses regularly check off on the paper T-Sheet items that were not done. I even see some make up phony discharge vital signs rather than take the time to do them. I recently had a discussion with my Charge Nurse who audits charts prior to the end of the shift. She was all over me because I was not checking off the boxes which said ID Band confirmed, Bed in low position, Side rails up x 2, patient gowned, blanket provided, and including discharge vitals. I told her, the patient was a Fast Track patient and discharged within minutes of arrival, I didn’t do all those things. Doesn’t matter she said, “Just check the boxes or we get dinged”. I told her to go ahead and ding me, make my day. I’d rather get dinged for not checking boxes than falsifying a chart. My stand is being viewed as I'm just being difficult.
The question that this begs is whether the problem is with the individuals or the tool. My opinion is a poorly designed tool facilitates shortcuts in certain individuals who are either lazy, dishonest, or very uninformed about what they are charting. Templated charting, either paper or electronic, can cross the line rapidly into fraudulent charting in those individuals. I don’t think they view it as fraud and are able to rationalize their actions because they feel they are only documenting to satisfy a regulatory requirement. In the case of documenting items not done to obtain a higher billing level there is no question in my mind that fraud is occurring.
A good article, here, at AIS Health.com list some of the issues with templated electronic documentation.
"Physicians love electronic medical record (EMR) templates because they make documentation faster and easier, but abuses, such as cloning and "exploding" notes, are jeopardizing reimbursement and compliance, experts say. If too much information is replicated from one EMR to the next, there is little to distinguish patient encounters, and that undermines physician attempts to establish medical necessity — the foundation of Medicare reimbursement — and perhaps implicates quality of care."
My first example I listed is an example of an exploding note. Basically, an electronic template is pulled up for a specific complaint, a few mouse clicks is all it takes to default all values to normal and a beautiful paragraph is produced based on programming code behind the scenes listing all the elements of a comprehensive normal exam. To change the defaults you need to click a few more times either selecting common abnormal values or free text the abnormal finding in. The path of least resistance is the former.
"Cloning can work for elements of the history, but cannot and should not be used for the history of present illness, the exam or the medical decision-making portion," the compliance officer says."
Cloning refers to pulling data forward from previous visits or from another persons note, usually via copy and paste, into your note and signing it as yours. Very helpful for a long history which does not change but problematic for a physical exam that you did not do. In Academic Medical Centers its common for the Student to do the exam, the Resident pulls forward the note as theirs and on rounds the Attending does the same and signs it electronically.
Templated charting both paper and electronic has caught the attention of many in the HIM community. The American Health Information Management Association has a good paper on Guidelines for EHR Documentation to prevent Fraud. The article list many types of documentation problems and recommendations and the appendix gives real case examples.
“Electronic documentation tools offer exciting new time-saving and validity checking features designed to enhance communication for all health record users. They address traditional, well-known requirements for documentation principles, while supporting expansive new HIM capabilities. However, use of these features without appropriate management and guidelines may cause invalid auto population of data fields, manufactured documentation to enhance expected reimbursement, and other undesirable outcomes”
What is the solution? It’s certainly not to stop using templated charting or electronic charting. It won’t be long before everyone is doing it. A strong set of standards for EMR design and training is essential. Charting tools that require structured data for most exam documentation would help. Rules against copying notes of others and calling them yours and the clear understanding that if you have charted something you did not do you have committed fraud. You can report fraud here. Templated charting, if used correctly, prompts the individual to perform complete exams and documentation and can enhance patient safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
