MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2790564326 · doi:10.1097/01.asw.0000405219.72792.b5

Your Meaningful Use and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Checklists

2011· article· en· W2790564326 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cathy Thomas Hess

Notice bibliographique

RevueAdvances in Skin & Wound Care · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Coding and Health Information
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMedicaidReimbursementPaymentIncentive programIncentiveFiscal yearFamily medicineMandateHealth careMedical emergencyFinanceBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It seems we are living our healthcare lives meeting deadline dates and changing workflows based on regulations. Target dates for "meaningful use" began in 2010 and continue until 2015. The target date for International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) conversion is October 1, 2013. Meeting Meaningful Use Let's begin with electronic health records (EHRs). The Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs will provide incentive payments to eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) as they adopt, implement, upgrade, or demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. Remaining dates to remember for this task include the following: September 30, 2011-Last day of the federal fiscal year. Reporting year ends for eligible hospitals and CAHs. October 3, 2011-Last day for eligible professionals to begin their 90-day reporting period for calendar year 2011 for the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. November 30, 2011-Last day for eligible hospitals and CAHs to register and attest to receive an Incentive Payment for Federal fiscal year 2011. December 31, 2011-Reporting year ends for eligible professionals. February 29, 2012-Last day for eligible professionals to register and attest to receive an Incentive Payment for calendar year 2011. For 2015 and later, Medicare-eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and CAHs that do not successfully demonstrate meaningful use will have a payment adjustment in their Medicare reimbursement.1 Conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10 Next, let's take a look at the mandate for ICD-10. A number of other countries already use ICD-10, including United Kingdom (1995), France (1997), Australia (1998), Germany (2000), and Canada (2001). The mandated date for conversion to this new coding system in the United States is October 1, 2013. According to the American Medical Association, the following exemplifies the differences between the ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes: "The differences between ICD-9 and ICD-10 are significant, and physicians and practice management staff need to start educating themselves now about this major change so that they will be able to meet the October 1, 2013, compliance deadline. ICD-10 Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes are the ones designated for use in documenting diagnoses. They are 3 to 7 characters in length and total 68,000, whereas ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes are 3 to 5 digits in length and number more than 14,000. The ICD-10 Procedure Coding System codes are the procedure codes, and they are alphanumeric, 7 characters in length, and total approximately 87,000, whereas ICD-9-CM procedure codes are only 3 to 4 numbers in length and total approximately 4000 codes. Moving to ICD-10 is expected to have an impact on all physicians. Because of the increased number of codes, the change in the number of characters per code, and increased code specificity, this transition will require significant planning, training, software/system upgrades/replacements, and other necessary investments. Before the ICD-10 codes can be used, however, physicians and others in the healthcare community must start using the new version of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act transaction standards known as 5010 by January 1, 2012, as the current version, 4010, does not accommodate use of the ICD-10 codes."2 According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,3 the new, up-to-date classification system will provide much better data needed to measure the quality, safety, and efficacy of care; reduce the need for attachments to explain the patient's condition; design payment systems and process claims for reimbursement; conduct research, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials; set health policy; support operational and strategic planning; design healthcare delivery systems; monitor resource utilization; improve clinical, financial, and administrative performance; prevent and detect healthcare fraud and abuse; and track public health and risks. Whether you are meeting the regulations for meaningful use and/or implementing changes for ICD-10, remember that a successful transition and implementation require a well-planned and well-managed implementation process.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,185
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,306

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,232
Tête enseignante GPT0,461
Écart entre enseignants0,229 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAdvances in Skin & Wound CareMême sujetMedical Coding and Health InformationTravaux en français237 207