In the setting of emergent care, the ability to access equipment rapidly and reliably can be a deciding factor in patient outcome. Poor stocking, inconsistent organization, and dispersal of equipment throughout a large geographic area are realities of practice as well as barriers to rapid and effective patient care. Equipment kits are a great way to ensure rapid access to a select set of tools to deal with emergent scenarios. They result in both decreased time to arrival and decreased time to successful completion of procedure.1,2 Scenarios that can benefit from organized and well provisioned kits include central or peripheral access, airway management, initial stabilization, monitor application, chest tube placement, or cricothyroidotomy. A word of caution: equipment kits are not a substitute for skill and cannot be thought of as a fix-all. They keep a specific set of equipment in an easy-to-locate, all-in-one package for use in a predetermined set of scenarios.
Exceptional communication is essential when providing care to patients in the ED. This is especially true given that we don’t have a preexisting relationship with our patients. They have never seen us before, have little or no information about us, and didn’t choose us. They are typically anxious, uncomfortable, and would probably rather be somewhere else. Exceptional communication allows patients to gain trust in us, in our skills, and in our recommendations. Strong communication skills not only allow physician and non-physician staff to gather relevant information and share important findings, but also help improve healthcare outcomes, reduce misunderstandings, and minimize litigation. Below are 10 pearls, divided into 4 habits, to help you get the most out of the clinical encounter and improve your patient’s care experience.
After a STEMI activation from the field on Monday morning, the cardiac catheterization team scoops the patient away shortly after the paramedics arrive in the Emergency Department (ED). “Well that was a smooth and seamless resuscitation. The patient was barely in the ED for more than 15 minutes,” you think to yourself. You diligently complete your critical care documentation, noting 20 minutes of critical care time, before seeing your next patient. A few weeks later the chart is bounced back and noted as an erroneous documentation of critical care time. The coding department notifies you that the case will be billed as a Level 3 visit (E/M code #99283). Why is that the case?
In this ED Charting and Coding Series, we have covered Introduction to ED Charting and Coding (PV Card); the History of Present Illness & Past Medical, Family, Social History; the Review of Systems; and the Physical Exam. At last we arrive at the crux of the chart: Medical Decision Making (MDM). In this final section, you show your work and your thought process.
“What do I see, hear, and smell when I walk into the room?” While the oral boards challenge you to perform the physical exam in a certain way, the day to day examination of patients can vary dramatically. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), however, has physical exam guidelines for billing that conform to neither the exam you learned as a medical student nor the one you’ve refined as a resident. These disparities between what you do and how you’re asked to document it can lead to charts that are frequently down-coded or at risk if audited. The following discussion tries to unravel some of these twisted regulations and will provide tips and tricks on how to improve your physical exam documentation for coding and billing.
The Review of Systems (ROS) was the most frustrating aspect of charting as an intern. Documenting at least 10 elements from systems seemingly unrelated to the chief complaint took as long as a physical exam and was much harder to remember. For efficiency, many of us include any pertinent positives and negatives in the history of present illness (HPI) and use an ROS caveat such as “10/14 Review of Systems completed and is negative except as stated above in HPI (Systems reviewed: Const, Eyes, ENT, Resp, CV, GI, GU, MSK, Skin, Neuro)” or “A complete Review of Systems was obtained and is negative except as stated in HPI.”
This obviates documenting 10 or more separate systems, but what if you’re at a site where the coders won’t accept a blanket phrase? Should you keep your lengthy HPI and then chart the same info again? Or can we devise a ROS that is at a minimum not redundant, and perhaps even helpful?
Remember the “OPQRST” mnemonic? It stands for Onset, Provocation/Palliation, Quality, Region/Radiation, Severity, Timing. Not only can it guide your history taking, but charting these descriptors also ensures you can code at an appropriate level. The patient’s history is the first example of the balance between essential information and over-documentation. It should be comprehensive, yet be chief-complaint focused . Below, we outline the components of a thorough and billable history.