Questionable Hospital Chart Documentation Practices by Physicians

UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0019, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 09/2008; 23(11):1865-70. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0750-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Physicians, influenced by various pressures, may document information in patient records that they did not personally observe.
To evaluate the hospital chart documentation practices of internists and internal medicine sub-specialists in the Northeastern United States.
An anonymous mail survey questionnaire.
One thousand one hundred twenty-six randomly selected internists and internal medicine sub-specialists.
Responses to questions describing their own hospital chart documentation practices, those they observed among their colleagues, and ratings of the importance of possible influences.
Response rate was 43%. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of physicians reported personally engaging in one or more of six questionable documentation scenarios. Forty percent (40%, CI; 37%-43%) indicated that they recorded laboratory notes in patient records based on information that they did not personally obtain, while 6% (CI; 5%-8%) admitted to writing notes on patients not personally seen or examined. The corresponding percentages reported for their colleagues were 52% (CI; 49%-56%) and 22% (CI; 20%-25%), respectively. Increased rates of documentation lapses were significantly associated with working directly with residents and/or fellows (OR = 1.71, CI; 1.30-2.25), younger age (OR for 10 year age decrease = 1.35, CI; 1.19-1.53), white race (OR = 1.47, CI; 1.08-2.00), and graduation from US medical schools (OR = 1.75, CI; 1.31-2.34).
Most physicians report having engaged in questionable hospital chart documentation. This practice is more common among physicians who are younger, working with house staff, and graduates of US medical schools.

Download full-text


Available from: Cristine Delnevo, Mar 14, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medical students have routinely documented patient encounters in both inpatient and outpatient care venues. This hands-on experience has provided a way for students to reflect on patient encounters, learn proper documentation skills, and attain a sense of being actively involved in and responsible for the care of patients. Over the last several years, the practice of student note writing has come into question. Institutional disincentives to student documentation include insurance regulations that restrict student documentation from substantiating billing claims, concerns about the legal status of student notes, and implementation of electronic medical records that do not allow or restrict student access. The increased scrutiny of the medical record from pay-for-performance programs and other quality measures will likely add to the pressure to exclude students from writing notes. This trend in limiting medical student documentation may have wide-ranging consequences for student education, from delaying the learning of proper documentation skills to limiting training opportunities. This article reviews the educational value of student note writing, the factors that have made student documentation problematic, and the potential educational impact of limiting student documentation. In addition, it offers some suggestions for future research to guide policy in this area.
    Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 08/2009; 76(4):357-64. DOI:10.1002/msj.20130 · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Promoting racial/ethnic diversity within the physician workforce is a national priority. However, the extent of racial/ethnic discrimination reported by physicians from diverse backgrounds in today's health-care workplace is unknown. To determine the prevalence of physician experiences of perceived racial/ethnic discrimination at work and to explore physician views about race and discussions regarding race/ethnicity in the workplace. Cross-sectional, national survey conducted in 2006-2007. Practicing physicians (total n = 529) from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds in the United States. We examined physicians' experience of racial/ethnic discrimination over their career course, their experience of discrimination in their current work setting, and their views about race/ethnicity and discrimination at work. The proportion of physicians who reported that they had experienced racial/ethnic discrimination "sometimes, often, or very often" during their medical career was substantial among non-majority physicians (71% of black physicians, 45% of Asian physicians, 63% of "other" race physicians, and 27% of Hispanic/Latino(a) physicians, compared with 7% of white physicians, all p < 0.05). Similarly, the proportion of non-majority physicians who reported that they experienced discrimination in their current work setting was substantial (59% of black, 39% of Asian, 35% of "other" race, 24% of Hispanic/Latino(a) physicians, and 21% of white physicians). Physician views about the role of race/ethnicity at work varied significantly by respondent race/ethnicity. Many non-majority physicians report experiencing racial/ethnic discrimination in the workplace. Opportunities exist for health-care organizations and diverse physicians to work together to improve the climate of perceived discrimination where they work.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 09/2009; 24(11):1198-204. DOI:10.1007/s11606-009-1103-9 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mental health problems have been identified among soldiers serving in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF), but little is known about the prevalence and management of alcohol misuse in OEF/OIF veterans seen in the Veterans Administration health care system (VA). We identified 12,092 veterans (n=2009 women) 55 and younger and screened for alcohol misuse in FY2007 from a cross-sectional national sample of VA outpatients randomly selected for standardized medical record review for quality monitoring. Alcohol misuse was assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption questions (AUDIT-C > or =5). Based on medical record reviews, brief alcohol interventions (BI) were defined as documented (1) advice to abstain or drink within recommended limits or (2) feedback about health risks associated with drinking. Adjusted prevalence of alcohol misuse was higher in OEF/OIF men than non-OEF/OIF men [21.8% vs. 10.5%, adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.37 (95% CI: 1.88-2.99)], but did not differ reliably between OEF/OIF and non-OEF/OIF women [4.7% vs. 2.9%, AOR=1.68 (0.74-3.79)]. Adjusted rates of documented advice or feedback [31.6% vs. 34.6%, AOR=0.87 (0.58-1.21)] and referral [24.1% vs. 28.9%, AOR=0.78 (0.47-1.30)] were not significantly different between OEF/OIF and non-OEF/OIF men who screened positive for alcohol misuse. OEF/OIF men were more likely to screen positive for alcohol misuse than non-OEF/OIF men. Overall, approximately half of those with alcohol misuse had documented BI and/or referral to alcohol treatment suggesting a need for improvement in addressing alcohol misuse in OEF/OIF and other veterans.
    Drug and alcohol dependence 02/2010; 109(1-3):147-53. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.025 · 3.28 Impact Factor
Show more