ArticleCJEM2026
Do billing codes accurately reflect pediatric emergency physician workload? A cross-sectional study.
Article in CJEM, 2026. 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
backgroundMeasuring physician workload in the pediatric emergency department (ED) could help optimize staffing, improve department efficiency, and provide a metric to assess interventions aimed at improving pediatric ED flow. However, no accepted measure of physician workload exists. Billing codes, which reflect the perceived complexity of treating a patient, may serve as a surrogate for physician workload. Our objective was to evaluate whether billing codes are a valid surrogate for pediatric ED physician workload.
methodsWe conducted a health records review to determine if billing codes were associated with measures of pediatric ED physician work. Visit information was extracted for 150 pediatric ED visits. We used multivariable ordinal logistic regression models to assess the association between pediatric ED physician-assigned billing codes, with measures of visit complexity, and measures of pediatric ED physician work. We also completed a sensitivity analysis considering a billing auditors-assigned billing codes.
resultsThree measures of pediatric ED physician work were independently associated with increased physician-assigned billing codes: receiving labs (OR 5.6, 95% CI 2.2-15.4), ordering medications (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-5.1), and having specialist consultation (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.6-12.5). We did not find any statistically significant associations between physician-assigned billing codes and measures of physician work after adjusting for visit complexity, age, and sex. Visit acuity (PaedsCTAS 1-3) was associated with increased billing codes (aOR 5.1 95% CI 1.9-15.7). These results were largely consistent with our sensitivity analysis considering billing auditor-assigned codes.
conclusionsOverall, we found limited evidence supporting the content validity of billing code as a surrogate of pediatric ED physician workload. These results, coupled with the potential value of tracking physician workload, highlight the necessity to develop a valid and reliable measure specifically considering pediatric ED physician workload.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40944868What 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.