ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014
An integrated billing application to streamline clinician workflow.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Patient Accounting Systems: Are They Fit with the Users' Requirements?Healthcare informatics research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Between 2008 and 2010, our academic medical center transitioned to electronic provider documentation using a commercial electronic health record system. For attending physicians, one of the most frustrating aspects of this experience was the system's failure to support their existing electronic billing workflow. Because of poor system integration, it was difficult to verify the supporting documentation for each bill and impractical to track whether billable notes had corresponding charges. We developed and deployed in 2011 an integrated billing application called "iCharge" that streamlines clinicians' documentation and billing workflow, and simultaneously populates the inpatient problem list using billing diagnosis codes. Each month, over 550 physicians use iCharge to submit approximately 23,000 professional service charges for over 4,200 patients. On average, about 2.5 new problems are added to each patient's problem list. This paper describes the challenges and benefits of workflow integration across disparate applications and presents an example of innovative software development within a commercial EHR framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25954425PMC4420016What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.