ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2024
Optimizing Neuroscience Mortality: A Collaborative Approach to Documentation Improvement.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Mortality index is the ratio of observed-to-expected mortality. Accurate and thorough documentation of patient comorbidities and conditions is the key determinant of neuroscience expected mortality. In this study, we focused on reviewing neuroscience documentation, as optimizing mortality index provides accurate assessment of the quality of care provided, improves service-line rankings, and affects reimbursement. Methods: We assembled an interprofessional team of a neurologist and clinical documentation integrity (CDI) specialists to review clinical documentation of all mortalities from the neuroscience service lines at a tertiary academic medical center over 9 months. We identified common documentation opportunities among high acuity neuroscience patients to improve accuracy of expected mortality. Using the mortality risk adjustment method from Vizient Inc., we compared baseline and postreview expected mortality. Results: We reviewed 70 mortality charts over a 9-month period. Opportunities to improve documentation were present in 60%. Common underreported comorbidities included aspiration pneumonia, shock, encephalopathy, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhagic disorder due to anticoagulation, and nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. The number of diagnoses identified per patient that affected mortality increased between the first and last quarter from 4.3 to 7.8 ( Discussion: Collaboration between physicians and CDI specialists optimizes expected mortality by identification of common gaps in documentation specific to neuroscience patients. Neurologist engagement is beneficial in CDI and lays the framework for clinical documentation education for neurology physicians.
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.