ArticleBMJ open quality2022
Resident integration with inpatient clinical documentation improvement: a quality improvement project.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing Health Insurance Claims Processing: The Role of Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI).Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Assessment of the quality of oral squamous cell carcinoma clinical records in oral surgery with Surgical Tool for Auditing Records (STAR) scoring.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Optimizing Neuroscience Mortality: A Collaborative Approach to Documentation Improvement.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical documentation improvement (CDI) is an increasing part of health system quality and patient care with clinical documentation integrity specialists (CDIS) expanding into daily physician workflow. This integration can be especially challenging for resident teams due to increased team size, lack of documentation experience, and misunderstanding of both CDIS and CDI purpose. PROBLEM: The University of Kansas Health System Internal Medicine residency programme reported challenges with CDIS and resident workflow integration specifically in navigating and understanding CDIS documentation queries, CDIS interruption of interdisciplinary huddles, and general misunderstanding of CDI and the role of CDIS.
methodsA quality improvement project was undertaken to integrate CDIS more effectively into resident workflow. Combined with a resident debrief session to identify general areas of concern, surveys were administered to internal medicine residents, resident rounding faculty and CDIS team members to identify specific barriers to CDIS-physician integration.
interventionA collective group of CDIS member teams, internal medicine chief residents and faculty physicians was formed. Changes made to the CDI process based on survey feedback included (1) improving formatting of CDIS electronic query templates, (2) standardisation of timing for CDIS verbal queries during interdisciplinary huddles, and (3) development of a resident didactic session focused on the role of CDIS and documentation's impact on quality, safety and outcomes as related to the hospital, provider and patient.
resultsSurveys completed after implementation showed a positive impact on electronic query template changes and perception of CDIS at interdisciplinary huddles. The didactic curriculum was effective in helping residents understand the role and limitations of CDIS and how documentation affects quality of care.
conclusionCDIS-physician integration into resident teams can occur through a collaborative focus on specific aspects of physician workflow and improving understanding of the impact of CDI on patient safety and quality of care.
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.