TY - JOUR
T1 - Monitoring inbaskets with feedback to providers enhances the timeliness of patient care
AU - Trant, Amelia A.
AU - Strait, Michael
AU - Kaplan, Rory
AU - Dest, Vanna
AU - Roshka, Adam
AU - Lyons, Catherine A.
AU - Vest, Kevin A.
AU - Steffen, Tessa
AU - Chiang, Anne
AU - Adelson, Kerin B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/5/1
Y1 - 2018/5/1
N2 - Purpose Electronic health records have changed providers’ workflow. Epic’s InBasket supplants traditional communication and is a central hub for clinical information. Failure to promptly complete records impairs communication and revenue collection. By tracking providers’ InBasket activities and offering feedback, we hoped to improve InBasket management and interdisciplinary communication. Methods We created a report to track 273 providers’ InBasket activities, including ambulatory transcriptions, chart cosignatures, order cosignatures, patient calls, results, and billable encounters. The report showed how often and for how long each activity was delinquent. We completed three Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. During cycle 1 (November to December 2015), we sent all providers automated e-mails with their monthly results. During cycle 2 (January to April 2016), we focused solely on billable encounter closure and sent targeted e-mails to providers with . 50 delinquent encounters. The e-mails stated that providers had 30 days to complete encounters or their practices would be closed to new patients; at 30 days, noncompliant providers had 60 days before practice suspension. During cycle 3 (May to September 2016), we continued to monitor and send targeted e-mails to providers who accumulated . 50 encounters. We modeled the financial impact of the intervention using net closure data, the report’s aging function, and billing logs. Results InBasket monitoring with structured feedback decreased open encounters by 53.43%. We did not see improvements in the other metrics that the report tracked. We estimate that $231,724 was saved as a result of the intervention and $349,179 was lost to filing deadlines. Conclusion Automated e-mails did not reduce open encounters; targeted e-mails to providers improved InBasket management.
AB - Purpose Electronic health records have changed providers’ workflow. Epic’s InBasket supplants traditional communication and is a central hub for clinical information. Failure to promptly complete records impairs communication and revenue collection. By tracking providers’ InBasket activities and offering feedback, we hoped to improve InBasket management and interdisciplinary communication. Methods We created a report to track 273 providers’ InBasket activities, including ambulatory transcriptions, chart cosignatures, order cosignatures, patient calls, results, and billable encounters. The report showed how often and for how long each activity was delinquent. We completed three Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. During cycle 1 (November to December 2015), we sent all providers automated e-mails with their monthly results. During cycle 2 (January to April 2016), we focused solely on billable encounter closure and sent targeted e-mails to providers with . 50 delinquent encounters. The e-mails stated that providers had 30 days to complete encounters or their practices would be closed to new patients; at 30 days, noncompliant providers had 60 days before practice suspension. During cycle 3 (May to September 2016), we continued to monitor and send targeted e-mails to providers who accumulated . 50 encounters. We modeled the financial impact of the intervention using net closure data, the report’s aging function, and billing logs. Results InBasket monitoring with structured feedback decreased open encounters by 53.43%. We did not see improvements in the other metrics that the report tracked. We estimate that $231,724 was saved as a result of the intervention and $349,179 was lost to filing deadlines. Conclusion Automated e-mails did not reduce open encounters; targeted e-mails to providers improved InBasket management.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061717628&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061717628&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JOP.17.00103
DO - 10.1200/JOP.17.00103
M3 - Article
C2 - 29641273
AN - SCOPUS:85061717628
SN - 1554-7477
VL - 14
SP - E310-E315
JO - Journal of oncology practice
JF - Journal of oncology practice
IS - 5
ER -