Development and evaluation of a charge capture program for long-term care providers.

OBJECTIVE Clinicians often have difficulty determining the appropriate Current Procedural Terminology Evaluation and Management code to assign to the type and intensity of patient care they provide. The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate a handheld charge capture program for use by providers in the long-term care setting. DESIGN Using a pre-post study design, we compared the coding accuracy and user satisfaction of an established paper process with a handheld charge capture program created for this study by means of: (1) preimplementation and postimplementation assessment of coding accuracy, and (2) preimplementation and postimplementation clinician survey. SETTING We studied an academic division of geriatric medicine. PARTICIPANTS Participants consisted of six clinicians who currently spend at least 50% of their clinical time practicing in the long-term care setting. INTERVENTION A handheld charge capture program to replace the current paper-based charge capture process was reviewed. RESULTS Overall coding accuracy improved by approximately 20% when the handheld program was used instead of a paper coding process. The majority of clinicians found that the handheld program was more widely available, efficient, easier to use, and encouraged the participants to document more completely and accurately in the patient's medical record. CONCLUSION A handheld billing and coding program used by clinicians who provide care for long-term care residents is not only feasible, but leads to an improvement in coding accuracy when compared with a paper process. In addition, clinician satisfaction toward the billing and coding processes improved with the use of the handheld program.

[1]  J. Kassirer,et al.  Evaluation and management guidelines--fatally flawed. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  Stephen E. Lapinsky,et al.  Review Paper: Handheld Computing in Medicine , 2003, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[3]  L. Sharp,et al.  Expert agreement in Current Procedural Terminology evaluation and management coding. , 2002, Archives of internal medicine.

[4]  R. Lasker,et al.  The intensity of physicians' work in patient visits--implications for the coding of patient evaluation and management services. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Mary H Stanfill Change at hand: how PDAs can transform coding, billing. , 2002, Journal of AHIMA.

[6]  L I Iezzoni,et al.  The demand for documentation for Medicare payment. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  R Nelson Handhelds capture charges, speed billing cycle. , 1999, Medical group management journal.

[8]  B Monteverdi,et al.  In the palm of your hand. , 2001, Medical group management journal.

[9]  S. Flocke,et al.  Billing for physician services: a comparison of actual billing with CPT codes assigned by direct observation. , 1998, Journal of Family Practice.

[10]  C M Harris Handheld computers in medicine: the future is not here yet. , 2001, Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine.

[11]  K. Stange,et al.  Evaluation and management services. A comparison of medical record documentation with actual billing in community family practice. , 2000, Archives of Family Medicine.