Remaining 3 posts on medical record documentation

I have based my previous posts on medical record documentation on the Joint Commission International (JCI) Standards found in the Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th Edition and The Joint Commission International Accreditation Hospital Survey Process Guide, 3rd Edition.

To round-up writing about all matters related to medical record documentation based on JCI’s Standards, I have recently discovered in the course of my study of the above mentioned manual/guide, that I need to write about three assessment activities to include under medical record documentation, before I can categorically state I have completed all of the required contents of a medical record to fully satisfy all JCI’s Standards related to medical record documentation and the process of a closed Medical Records Review.

To this effect, the remaining 3 posts on medical record documentation will cover :

  1. the information gathered at the initial medical and/or nursing assessment when patients are screened for nutritional status and functional needs and are referred for further assessment and treatment when necessary, including a fall-risk assessment;
  2. the need for discharge planning at the initial assessment for those patients for whom discharge planning is critical due to age, lack of mobility, continuing medical and nursing needs, or assistance with activities of daily living, among others; and
  3. reassessment conducted by a doctor in the ongoing patient care and when results are noted in the patient’s medical record for the information and use of all those caring for the patient.

For Health Information Management (HIM) / Medical Records (MR) practitioners working at a hospital which is already JCI accredited or seeking JCI accreditation status or undergoing re-survey for JCI accreditation statusyou will need to take note that all of the 3 assessment activities listed above are included in the closed Medical Records Review.Tool. 

References:
Joint Commission International 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA

Joint Commission International 2010, The Joint Commission International Accreditation Hospital Survey Process Guide, 3rd edn, JCI, USA

MSQH – Introductory Post

MSQH-SS-7MSQH short for the Malaysian Society for Quality in Health, is the sole Malaysian accreditation body with nationally established standards for health care facilities and services since 1997, dedicated to improving the quality of Malaysia’s health care through voluntary accreditation.

MSQH’s standards cover all aspects of healthcare, beginning with the patient’s point of entry into the healthcare system, patient’s interphase with healthcare providers, staff ethics, training and their competencies and outcomes of care.

MSQH avails that its standards are at par with other hospital accreditation standards like the Joint Commission International (JCI) Standards after the International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua) had granted MSQH the highly esteemed honor that “accredits the accreditors” and provides worldwide recognition for accredited organisations like MSQH that meet approved international standards under ISQua’s International Accreditation Program (IAP).  This highly esteemed honor for the period from August 2008 to July 2012 reinforces that MSQH’s standards meet the highest international benchmark.

Effective January 2013, all MSQH accredited hospitals are surveyed once every four years, submit the 18 month and 30 month compliance reports, and will also undergo ‘Surprise Surveillance’ for continuous compliance based on the 4th Edition of the MSQH Hospital Accreditation Standards.

In this introductory post and in subsequent posts, I shall begin blogging about the MSQH SERVICE STANDARD 7 Health Information Management System based on the 4th Edition of the MSQH Hospital Accreditation Standards.

This standard is divided into 6 topics as follows:

TOPIC 7.1: ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

TOPIC 7.2: HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

TOPIC 7.3: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

TOPIC 7.4: FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

TOPIC 7.5: SAFETY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES

TOPIC 7.6: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Topic 1 to Topic 5 each have one standard, while Topic 6 has 2 standards. All the standards have a list of criteria for compliance.

I shall be writing about Topic 7.1 in my next post on MSQH SERVICE STANDARD 7.

References:
Malaysian Society for Quality in Health 2013, About, viewed 2 February 2013, <http://www.msqh.com.my/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=54>

Malaysian Society for Quality in Health 2013, CEO’s Message, viewed 2 February 2013, <http://www.msqh.com.my/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=61>

Making comparisons via data analysis for improvement efforts

The hospital you work at will have many data-driven processes in place to assess ways to improve patient care. Data is collected and analysed, data analysed is usually used to evaluate its current performance and also to be able to compare your hospital’s performance with other similar hospitals, all of which is to find the opportunity to improve in four ways:

  1. analysis of its past historical data with itself over time , such as month to month, or one year to the next or last year’s value to the current year, or a time series of several years, provides an initial baseline for examining trends and allows judgment on the direction of the measure;
  2. making competitor and industry comparisons what other similar hospitals are achieving provides crude guidelines. Competitor and industry comparisons has direct bearing on the hospital’s profitability, especially the privately owned hospital;
  3. (a) with standards, such as those set by accrediting and professional bodies such as through reference databases collected and analysed from data on hospital performance frequently made available through publicly available hospital quality comparison Web sites aimed at patients for example, data that can be viewed from Hospital Compare from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Quality Check from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Leapfrog Group’s Hospital Quality and Safety Survey Results; comparing standards set for example by the Joint Commission International (JCI) also enables a hospital to improve its desirable practices; also, (b) it is common knowledge that hospitals are legally responsible for ensuring the quality of medical care; as healthcare practitioners we are aware that the hospital management of a public hospital or in the case of a private hospital – the hospital board, is responsible for exercising the duty of care based on those set by laws or regulations – for example the legal requirement of the Private Healthcare Facilities And Services (Private Medical Clinics Or Private Dental Clinics) Regulations 2006, Private Healthcare Facilities And Services Act 1998 in Malaysia, on behalf of the patients and the community and on behalf of doctors who desire to participate, and the hospital as a whole is liable for damages should they fail.; and
  4. with recognised desirable practices identified in the literature as best or better practices or practice guidelines, for example in determining the success or failure of medical audit assessment by monitoring actual or suspected problems through (i) sentinel cases, (ii) criterion-based audit, (iii) comparison of small groups in the same field applicable at local hospital levels, (iv) conducting surveys like patient satisfaction surveys, and (v) peer review.

These comparisons help the hospital understand the source and nature of undesirable change and help focus improvement efforts that can be achieved through re-education, retraining, facilitation in small groups, or by more active persuasion.

If your hospital which is already JCI accredited or seeking JCI accreditation status or undergoing re-survey for JCI accreditation status, then it must be able to show evidence that it has a process or processes that incorporates data analysis measures to make relevant comparisons (i) over time within the hospital, (ii) with similar hospitals when possible, (iii) with standards when appropriate , and (iv) with known desirable practices, in order to satisfy the JCI QPS.4.2 Standard which states that “The analysis process includes comparisons internally, with other organizations when available, and with scientific standards and desirable practices.

How do Health Information Management (HIM) / Medical Records (MR) practitioners fit into this JCI Standard?

I can think of two ways as I come to the end of  this post.

In my opinion, HIM /MR practitioners must facilitate diagnostic excellence from rapid communication of patients’ current needs and understanding of the clinically indicated responses by ensuring that recording is made faster and more complete in medical records , include safeguards to improve accuracy, and speed transmission of patient-related information. For example, the penalty for incomplete medical records (usually a temporary loss of privileges) is quickly and routinely applied. A word of caution though about imposing the penalty. As we are fully aware, reality, however, does not always match with what is desired since I believe many doctors still enjoy the  part of their job which is talking to their patients and in this context, medical records tends to assume lesser importance. I think it is also not desirable to have a culture among doctors to be obsessive record writers who ‘spent all the time writing and didn’t even look at me’, a common complaint among patients.

HIM /MR practitioners must also exercise caution in the retrieval of medical records of the sample of patients designated as appropriate for example,a medical records audit. For example, the retrieval of medical record through diagnostic coding for Myocardial Infarction (MI) cases, after a patient’s discharge, may not enable the retrieval of a record of a patient who had a dissecting aneurysm of the aorta mismanaged as an MI for the first 12 hours of his/her care

References:
Joint Commission International 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA

Kenneth RW, and John RG 2010, The well-managed healthcare organization, 7th edn, Health Administration Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Srinivasan, AV 2008, Managing a modern hospital, 2nd edn, Response Books, SAGE, New Delhi, India

8 ways for identifying opportunities for improvement and documenting a hospital’s performance level

8-ways-for-identifying-opportunities-for--improvement-and--documenting-a-hospital’s--performance-level-2

References:
Joint Commission International 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA

A hospital’s performance improvement activities as opportunities for improvement

syringe-with-MCI.20.1-PI-activitiesIn three previous posts, I brought to you how aggregate data are an important part of the hospital’s performance improvement activities. In particular, the three posts were about aggregate data from risk management, utility system management, infection prevention and control, and utilisation review and how they can help the hospital understand its current performance and identify opportunities for improvement.

The posts were:

(i)                  JCI Standard MCI.20.1, ME 1 (Part 1) – risk management, in “The organization has a process to aggregate data in response to identified user needs.” ;

(ii)                JCI Standard MCI.20.1, ME 1 (Part 2) – infection prevention and control, in “The organization has a process to aggregate data in response to identified user needs.” ;

and

(iii)             JCI Standard MCI.20.1, ME 1 (Part 3) – utility system management and utilisation review, in “The organization has a process to aggregate data in response to identified user needs.”

Each of the links above will open in a new separate tab of your current browser window.

In this review of those 3 posts, I like to emphasise that a hospital chooses which clinical and managerial processes and outcomes are most important to monitor based on its mission patient needs and services provided. The hospital’s leaders must identify key measures (indicators) to monitor the hospitals’s clinical and managerial structures, processes and outcomes.

A required clinical monitoring which includes structure, process or outcomes data selected by the leaders is on aspects of infection control, surveillance and reporting. For managerial monitoring, a required managerial monitoring which includes structure, process or outcomes data selected by the leaders is on aspects of risk management and utilisation review/management.

The hospital collects and analyses aggregate data from clinical monitoring and managerial monitoring to support patient care and organisation management. Aggregate data provides a profile of the hospital over time and allows the comparison of the hospitals’s performance with other hospitals.

To measure the hospital’s performance improvement activities, hospitals usually prepare a master plan to reduce evident risks in the environment or individual plans which incorporates a comprehensive program and plan inclusive of :

  1. a program and plan to reduce the risk of health care-associated infections in patients, health care workers and visitors
  2. a program and plan that includes utility systems – electric, water and other utility systems,  maintained to minimise risk of failure

There is also a written plan for an organisation-wide quality improvement and patient safety program that includes clinical and managerial processes for risk management, utility system management, infection prevention and control, and utilisation review.

References:
Joint Commission International 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA