Observational studyF1000Research2024
Impact of Inaccurate Clinical Coding on Financial Outcome: A Study in a local hospital in Najran, Saudi Arabia.
Observational study in F1000Research, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coding in medical procedures is crucial for patients, and errors made by hospital administration during the coding process can have an impact on both the financial results and the course of therapy. The present study aims to assess the accuracy of diagnostic and procedural codes as recorded by the hospital's coders and to also evaluate their impact on the hospital's revenue. Methods: In a local hospital in Najran, Saudi Arabia, a cross-sectional observational analysis was conducted on patients with a clinical coder. The percentage of precision and error following the re-coding of cases was calculated using a statistical analysis. Results: Primary diagnosis was incorrectly coded in 57 (26 per cent) records, and secondary diagnosis was incorrectly coded in 21 (9.9 per cent) records. Inaccurate medical labelling has been seen in emergency rooms, operating rooms, and gynaecology facilities. Discussion: The percentage of records with the most incorrect coding was found to be 16 (7.5 per cent) in the emergency room, 10 (4.7 per cent) in the surgical clinic, and 5 (2.3 per cent) in the gynaecology/OBS clinic. Six (2.8 per cent) records in the private clinic had inaccurate secondary diagnoses, followed by four (1.9 per cent) and two (1 per cent) records in nephrology. Conclusion: The percentage of inaccurate clinical codes in primary diagnoses reached (26.8 per cent) and the percentage of incorrect clinical codes in secondary diagnoses reached (9.9 per cent).
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.