Improved clinical documentation leads to superior reportable outcomes: An accurate representation of patient's clinical status.

INTRODUCTION

Clinical documentation can be an underappreciated. Trauma Centers (TCs) are now routinely evaluated for quality performance. TCs with poor documentation may not accurately reflect actual injury burden or comorbidities and can impact accuracy of mortality measures. Markers exist to adjust crude death rates for injury severity: observed over expected deaths (O/E) adjust for injury; Case Mix Index (CMI) reflects disease burden, and Severity of Illness (SOI) measures organ dysfunction. We aim to evaluate the impact of implementing a Clinical Documentation Improvement Program (CDIP) on reported outcomes.

METHODS

Review of 2-years of prospectively collected data for trauma patients, during the implementation of CDIP. A two-group prospective observational study design was used to evaluate the pre-implementation and the post-implementation phase of improved clinical documentation. T-test and Chi-Squared were used with significance defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

In the pre-implementation period, there were 49 deaths out of 1419 (3.45%), while post-implementation period, had 38 deaths out of 1454 (2.61%), (non-significant). There was however, a significant difference between O/E ratios. In the pre-phase, the O/E was 1.36 and 0.70 in the post-phase (p < 0.001). The two groups also differed on CMI with a pre-group mean of 2.48 and a post-group of 2.87 (p < 0.001), indicating higher injury burden in the post-group. SOI started at 2.12 and significantly increased to 2.91, signifying more organ system dysfunction (p < 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Improved clinical documentation results in improved accuracy of measures of mortality, injury severity, and comorbidities and a more accurate reflection in O/E mortality ratios, CMI, and SOI.