ArticleCureus2024
Improving Anesthesia Start Time Documentation Through a Departmental Education Initiative at Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, United States.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Reimbursement for anesthetic services in the United States utilizes a formula that incorporates procedural and patient factors with total anesthesia time. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the period of billable time starts when the anesthesia practitioner assumes care of the patient and may include transport to the operating room from the preoperative holding area. In this report on a quality improvement effort, we implemented a departmental education initiative aimed at improving the accuracy of anesthesia start-time documentation. Methods Utilizing de-identified, internal data on surgical procedures at Yale New Haven Hospital (YNHH), New Haven, United States, the difference between documented anesthesia start and patient in-room time was determined for all cases. Those with a difference between 0-1 minute were assumed "likely underbilled," and the total revenue lost for these cases was estimated using a weighted average of institutional reimbursement per unit of time. A monthly, department-wide educational email was then introduced to inform practitioners about the guidelines around start-time documentation, and the percentage of "likely underbilled" cases and lost revenue estimates trended over a one-year period. Results Baseline data in December 2020 showed that of the 6,877 total surgical cases requiring anesthesia at YNHH, 55.1% (N=3,790) had an anesthesia start to in-room time of 0-1 minute, which were considered "likely underbilled." The average start-to-in-room time for properly recorded cases (44.9%, N=3,087) was 4.42 minutes. The baseline revenue lost in December 2020 for underbilled cases was estimated at $52,302. Over the one-year quality improvement initiative, the proportion of underbilled cases showed a downward trend, decreasing to 29.2% of total cases by November 2021. The estimate of revenue lost due to underbilling also showed a downward trend, decreasing to $29,300 in November 2021. Conclusion This quality improvement study demonstrated that a relatively simple, department-wide educational email sent monthly correlated with an improvement in anesthesia start-time documentation accuracy and a reduction in estimated revenue lost to underbilling over a one-year period.
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.