Search

In clinical trials, disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS) is measured by the Kurtzke expanded disability status scale (EDSS), which is not captured in routine clinical care in the U.S. This study developed a claims-based disability score (CDS) based on the EDSS for assigning MS disability level in a U.S. claims database. This retrospective cohort study of patients with MS in the U.S., utilized adjudicated health plan claims data linked to electronic medical records (EMRs) data. Patients were identified between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2016 and indexed on the first date of MS diagnosis. The CDS was developed to assign disability level at baseline using claims and ambulatory EMR records observed over the 1-year baseline period. All-cause healthcare costs were assessed by baseline disability level to validate the CDS. In total, 45,687 patients were identified in claims (full sample) and 1,599 linked to EMR (core sample). Over half of patients in both samples were classified with mild disability at baseline. Adjusted healthcare costs in patients with moderate and severe disability were 15% (p<.0001) and 20% higher, respectively, than in patients with mild disability at baseline in the full sample. Disease-modifying therapy (DMT) costs accounted for 89%, 82%, and 78% of outpatient pharmacy costs in patients with mild, moderate, and severe disability, respectively. The CDS is the first claims-based measure of MS disability utilizing data from EMR. This novel measure advances the opportunity to examine outcomes by disability accumulation in the absence of standard markers of disease progression. Although formal validation of the CDS was not possible due to lack of available EDSS in the EMR, the economic burden results align with prior publications and show that healthcare costs increase with increasing disability. Future validation studies of the CDS are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at a study which was conducted to to validate the clinical application of a pain mechanism classification system (PMCS) in clinical practice by analyzing the medical records of patients who were treated in the outpatient clinics.

Electronic health records (EHR) are not a new idea in the U.S. medical system, but surprisingly there has been very slow adoption of fully integrated EHR systems in practice in both primary care settings and within hospitals. For those who have invested in EHR, physicians report high levels of satisfaction and confidence in the reliability of their system. There is also consensus that EHR can improve patient care, promote safe practice, and enhance communication between patients and multiple providers, reducing the risk of error. As EHR implementation continues in hospitals, administrative and physician leadership must actively investigate all of the potential risks for medical error, system failure, and legal responsibility before moving forward. Ensuring that physicians are aware of their responsibilities in relation to their charting practices and the depth of information available within an EHR system is crucial for minimizing the risk of malpractice and lawsuit. Hospitals must commit to regular system upgrading and corresponding training for all users to reduce the risk of error and adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are structured, distributed documentation systems that differ from paper charts. These systems require skills not traditionally used to navigate a paper chart and to produce a written clinic note. Despite these differences, little attention has been given to physicians' electronic health record (EHR)-writing and -reading competence. Purposes: This study aims to investigate physicians' self-assessed competence to document and to read EHR notes; writing and reading preferences in an EHR; and demographic characteristics associated with their perceived EHR ability and preference. Methods: Fourteen 5-point Likert scale items, based on EHR system characteristics and a literature review, were developed to measure EHR-writing and -reading competence and preference. Physicians in the midwest region of the United States were invited via e-mail to complete the survey online from February to April 2011. Factor analysis and reliability testing were conducted to provide validity and reliability of the instrument. Correlation and regression analysis were conducted to pursue answers to the research questions. Results: Ninety-one physicians (12.5%), from general and specialty fields, working in inpatient and outpatient settings, participated in the survey. Despite over 3 years of EHR experience, respondents perceived themselves to be incompetent in EHR writing and reading (Mean=2.74, SD=0.76). They preferred to read succinct, narrative notes in EHR systems. However, physicians with higher perceived EHR-writing and -reading competence had less preference toward reading succinct (r=-0.33, p<0.001) and narrative (r=-0.36, p<0.001) EHR notes than physicians with lower perceived EHR competence. Physicians' perceived EHRwriting and - reading competence was strongly related to their EHR navigation skills (r=0.55, p<0.0001). Conclusions: Writing and reading EHR documentation is different for physicians. Maximizing navigation skills can optimize non-linear EHR writing and reading. Pedagogical questions remain related to how physicians and medical students are able to retrieve correct information effectively and to understand thought patterns in collectively lengthier and sometimes fragmented EHR chart notes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]