MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607417062 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v1i1.39

Barriers to high quality coding of hospital chart information to administrative data: A qualitative study

2017· article· en· W2607417062 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Tang, Kelsey Lucyk, Hude Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoding (social sciences)Thematic analysisMedical classificationData qualityComputer scienceQualitative researchPsychologyMedical educationMedicineNursingBusinessService (business)MarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTObjectives Administrative data are widely used in research, health policy, and the evaluation of health service delivery. We undertook a qualitative study to explore the barriers to high quality coding of chart information to administrative data, at the level of coders in Canada.
 ApproachOur study design is qualitative. We recruited professional medical chart coders and data users working across Alberta, Canada, using a multimodal recruitment strategy. We conducted an in-depth, semi-structured interview with each participant. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We conducted thematic analysis (e.g., line-by-line open coding) of interview transcripts. Codes were then collated into themes and compared across our dataset to ensure accurate interpretations of the data. The study team met to discuss, modify, and interpret emergent themes in the context of the barriers to coding administrative data.
 ResultsWe recruited 28 coding specialists. In general, coders had high job satisfaction and sense of collegiality, as well as sufficient resources to address their coding questions. They believed themselves to be adequately trained and consistently put in the extra effort when searching charts to find additional information that accurately reflected the patient journey. Barriers to high quality coding from the coder perspective included: 1) Incomplete and inaccurate information in physician progress notes and discharge summaries; 2) Difficulty navigating a complex hybrid of paper and electronic medical records; 3) Focus on productivity rather than quality by the employer, which at times resulted in inconsistent instructions for coding secondary diagnoses and discordant expectations between the employer and the coders’ professional standards.
 ConclusionFuture interventions to improve the quality of administrative data should focus on physician education of necessary components in charting, evaluation of electronic medical records from the perspectives of those who play a key role in abstracting data, and evaluation of productivity guidelines for coders and their effects on data quality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.009
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.617
GPT teacher head0.669
Teacher spread0.052 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207