ArticleBMJ open quality2020
Improving the quality of clinical coding and payments through student doctor-coder collaboration in a tertiary haematology department.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring barriers and facilitators to capturing cancer stage at diagnosis in a population-based cancer registry: a cross-sectional survey of health information managers/clinical coders and multidisciplinary team members.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Targeted education for clinicians and clinical coding staff improves the accuracy of clinical coding: A quality improvement project.Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
- Management of high and low risk malignant polyps: a population-wide analysis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2023Article
- Validation of Diagnostic Coding for Diabetes Mellitus in Hospitalized Patients.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2022Article
- MedCDI: A technology-based documentation and quality improvement initiative in neurosurgery.Surgical neurology international · 2022Article
- Clinical Coders' Perspectives on Pressure Injury Coding in Acute Care Services in Victoria, Australia.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Consultation analysis: use of free text versus coded text.Health and technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hospitals within the UK are paid for services provided by 'Payment-by-Results'. In a system that rewards productivity, effective collaboration between coders and clinicians is crucial. However, clinical coding is frequently error prone and has been shown to impact negatively on departmental revenue. Our aim was to increase the median number of diagnostic codes per sickle cell inpatient admission at Guy's Hospital by 3. Three interventions were implemented using the Plan, Do, Study, Act structure. This consisted of student doctors searching for diagnoses along with comorbidities that clinical coders had missed, distributing laminated cards with common clinical codes and implementing discharge pro formas. Through auditing, student doctors generated a total of £58 813 over 16 weeks. We observed an increase in the median number of codes by ≥2 additional codes. We improved coding accuracy where we identified errors in an average of 32.5% of admissions each month, improving the quality of patient documentation. We have demonstrated student doctor involvement in clinical coding as a potentially sustainable means of achieving accurate payment for services provided; increasing departmental revenue. We are the first to report the efficacy of student-coder collaboration in improving the accuracy of clinical coding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.