Financial impact of emergency department ultrasound

Development and Implementation of a Semi-Automated Workflow for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Billing and Documentation Within an Electronic Health Record

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. With its many advantages, including ease of use, real-time multisystem assessment, affordability, availability, and accuracy, it has been adopted by all medical specialties. Despite its advantages, the lack of standard workflow and automated billing solutions makes it difficult to launch a comprehensive POCUS program. In this work, we describe how we created and implemented an efficient standardized EHR-based workflow for POCUS that has been used across multiple division and settings within our organization.

Implementation of an automated, user-centered point-of-care ultrasound workflow improves documentation and billing

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a central component of emergency medical care. However, clinicians often fail to adequately document their examinations, causing problems for downstream clinicians and quality assurance processes as well as loss of revenue. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a user-centered POCUS documentation workflow system for examination ordering, documentation, selective archival, and billing on POCUS documentation in a large academic emergency department (ED).

METHODS

In this quasi-experimental study, we examined POCUS documentation 22 months before and 12 months after implementation of a user-centered, automated ultrasound workflow (October 2018-July 2021). The workflow allows for electronic health record (EHR) order entry to populate a virtual ultrasound worklist, automatic demographic information retrieval to ultrasound machines, selective image storage to a hospital picture archive and communications system and/or POCUS archive Ultralinq, generation of an EHR report, and integrated billing triggers. Data were retrieved using Current Procedural Terminology codes for billed POCUS examinations during the study period. We also collected monthly hospital registry data to quantify ED visits to control for volume. We compared the number and per-visit rate of POCUS documented using descriptive statistics and segmented linear regression before and after implementation of the workflow.

RESULTS

In the 22-month preimplementation period, 209,725 ED visits occurred. During this period, POCUS was completely documented in 13,514 or in 6.4% of ED visits. There were an average of 614 scans documented per month. In the 12-month postimplementation period, 97,418 ED visits occurred. During this period, POCUS was completely documented in 10,001 visits, or 10.3% of ED visits. There were an average of 833 scans documented per month. Linear regression analysis showed a significant increase in average monthly POCUS documentation of 265.34 scans/month (95% CI 150.60-380.09, p < 0.001) at the time of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center study, POCUS documentation increased by more than 60% following the implementation of a user-centered POCUS workflow that reduced the burden on the clinician by automating data entry, improving data flow between ultrasound machines and the EHR and integrating billing.

A retrospective evaluation of point of care ultrasound for acute cholecystitis in a tertiary academic hospital setting

BACKGROUND

In 2008 the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors delineated consensus recommendations for training in biliary ultrasound for the "detection of biliary pathology".

OBJECTIVES

While studies have looked at the accuracy of emergency provider performed clinical ultrasound (ECUS), we sought to evaluated if ECUS could be diagnostic for acute cholecystitis and thus obviate the need for follow-up imaging.

METHOD

We reviewed all ECUS performed between 2012 and 2017 that had a matching radiology performed ultrasound (RADUS) and a discharge diagnosis. 332 studies were identified. The sensitivity and specificity of both ECUS and RADUS were compared to the patient's discharge diagnosis. The agreement between the ECUS and RADUS was assessed using an unweighted Cohen's Kappa. The time from patient arrival to diagnosis by ECUS and RADUS was also compared.

RESULTS

Using discharge diagnosis as the gold standard ECUS was 67% (56-78%) sensitive, 88% (84-92%) specific, NPV 90% (87-95%), PPV 60% (50-71%), +LR 5.6 (3.9-8.2), -LR 0.37 (0.27-0.52) for acute cholecystitis. RADUS was 76% (66-87%) sensitive, 97% (95-99%) specific, NPV 95% (092-97%), PPV 86% (76-95%), +LR 25.6 (12.8-51.4), and -LR 0.24 (0.15-0.38). ECUS was able to detect gallstones with 93% (89-96%) sensitivity and 94% (90-98%) specificity leading to a NPV 90% (85-95%), PPV of 95% (92-98%), +LR 14.5 (7.7-27.4), -LR 0.08 (0.05-0.13). The unweighted kappa between ECUS and RADUS was 0.57. The median time between obtaining ECUS vs. RADUS diagnosis was 124 min.

CONCLUSIONS

ECUS can be beneficial in ruling out acute cholecystitis, but lacks the test characteristics to be diagnostic for acute cholecystitis.

Practical Aspects of Point-of-Care Ultrasound: From Billing and Coding to Documentation and Image Archiving

As point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly implemented into the routine clinical practice of nephrologists, it is important to consider the practical aspects of a POCUS workflow including documentation, image archiving, billing, and coding. Documentation of POCUS studies performed allows for accurate information exchange among all members of the care team and can be effectively implemented using preset documentation worksheets. Image archiving systems provide a mechanism for review, storage, and quality assurance processes that are directly linked to the patient's record. Understanding the coding components required for billing and developing efficient systems to support billing and coding can contribute to ensuring financial support for POCUS programs long term. Each individual component, documentation, image archiving, billing, and coding is necessary to incorporate into a POCUS workflow as documentation, archiving, and coding of studies are required for appropriate billing. Most importantly, incorporating these practical components creates opportunities for communicating clinically relevant findings among care teams and enhances the quality of patient care delivered in health systems.

Improving Point-of-Care Ultrasound Documentation and Billing Accuracy in a Pediatric Emergency Department

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objective:

The performance and interpretation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) should be documented appropriately in the electronic medical record (EMR) with correct billing codes assigned. We aimed to improve complete POCUS documentation from 62% to 80% and improve correct POCUS billing codes to 95% or higher through the implementation of a quality improvement initiative.

Methods:

We collected POCUS documentation and billing data from the EMR. Interventions included: (1) staff education and feedback, (2) standardization of documentation and billing, and (3) changes to the EMR to support standardization. We used P charts to analyze our outcome measures between January 2017 and June 2018.

Results:

Six hundred medical records of billed POCUS examinations were included. Complete POCUS documentation rate rose from 62% to 91%, and correct CPT code selection for billing increased from 92% to 95% after our interventions.

Conclusions:

The creation of a standardized documentation template incorporated into the EMR improved complete documentation compliance.

Billing I-AIM: a novel framework for ultrasound billing

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has an ever-growing footprint in medicine. With this growth POCUS billing and reimbursement has become an area gaining quite a bit of attention as a means of funding and sustaining quality and education programs. Standardization across providers is needed to improve the financial viability of POCUS.

RESULTS

We created an institutional collaborative which developed a framework to identify critical POCUS billing and reimbursement checkpoints. The framework, Billing I-AIM, provides a feasible structure to enhance provider-based reimbursement and perform quality improvement efforts across variable POCUS environments.

CONCLUSIONS

POCUS billing using the Billing I-AIM technique allows administrative oversight, quality assurance, and educational functions as well. A discussion of the framework and respective application is provided.

Retrospective analysis of eFAST ultrasounds performed on trauma activations at an academic level-1 trauma center

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become increasingly integrated into the practice of emergency medicine. A common application is the extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) exam. The American College of Emergency Physicians has guidelines regarding the scope of ultrasound in the emergency department and the appropriate documentation. The objective of this study was to conduct a review of performed, documented and billed eFAST ultrasounds on trauma activation patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of all trauma activation patients during a 10-month period at an academic level-one trauma center. A list comparing all trauma activations was cross-referenced with a list of all billed eFAST scans. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether an eFAST was indicated, performed, and appropriately documented.

RESULTS

We found that 1,507 of 1,597 trauma patients had indications for eFAST, but 396 (27%) of these patients did not have a billed eFAST. Of these 396 patients, 87 (22%) had documentation in the provider note that an eFAST was performed but there was no separate procedure note. The remaining 309 (78%) did not have any documentation of the eFAST in the patient's chart although an eFAST was recorded and reviewed during ultrasound quality assurance.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of trauma patients had eFAST exams performed but were not documented or billed. Lack of documentation was multifactorial. Emergency ultrasound programs require appropriate reimbursement to support training, credentialing, equipment, quality assurance, and device maintenance. Our study demonstrates a significant absence of adequate documentation leading to potential revenue loss for an emergency ultrasound program.

Trends in Medical Claims and Utilization of Limited Ultrasonography Among Emergency Physicians and Radiologists Within a Large Health Plan Provider

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate trends in medical claim submissions for limited ultrasound studies performed (1) during emergency department (ED) encounters and (2) by ED providers compared to radiologists.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, descriptive study using medical claims data from Medica Health Plans from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015. Current procedural terminology codes were abstracted for limited ultrasound applications performed during an ED visit and further stratified by studies performed by ED providers compared with radiologists. We excluded claims for which we could not determine provider specialty.

RESULTS

We identified 42,576 encounters with limited US claims, of which, 32,666 were submitted by ED providers (N = 9649) or radiologists (N = 23,017). Among ED providers, there was a significant linear increase in the annual number of claims for retroperitoneal (P < .001) and nonlinear increases for thoracic, soft tissue, cardiac, transvaginal genitourinary (GU) and transabdominal GU claims (all P < .001). Compared with radiologists, there was a linear increase in the annual proportion of claims submitted for retroperitoneal (P = .023), transabdominal GU (P = .003), and transvaginal GU (P < .001) studies by ED providers. There was a nonlinear decrease in the annual proportion of limited abdomen claims (P < .001) submitted by ED providers compared with radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Using data from a large health plan provider, we show that medical claims for many limited ultrasound studies are increasing among ED providers. Compared with radiologists, ED providers are increasingly submitting claims for retroperitoneal, soft tissue, and transabdominal GU studies.

Pratique de l’échographie clinique au sein d’un réseau territorial d’urgence

Objectif : L’échographie clinique en médecine d’urgence (ECMU) est un outil essentiel de notre pratique. L’objectif principal de notre étude était d’évaluer les caractéristiques des médecins pratiquant l’ECMU au sein de notre territoire. L’objectif secondaire était d’analyser les facteurs influençant une pratique régulière.

Matériel et méthodes : Étude descriptive multicentrique et déclarative, réalisée auprès de médecins urgentistes travaillant au sein d’un réseau territorial de médecine d’urgence à l’aide d’un questionnaire en ligne.

Résultats : Cent onze questionnaires sur 120 envoyés ont été renseignés (92 %). Onze services (92 %) étaient dotés en échographe dont neuf (82 %) en dotation propre. Soixantesix médecins (59 %) déclaraient pratiquer l’échographie régulièrement. La FAST (focused assessment with sonography for traumas) était la plus pratiquée (80 médecins, 72 %), suivie de l’exploration hémodynamique (50 médecins, 45 %) et pleurale (44 médecins, 40 %). Dans le groupe des médecins ne pratiquant pas l’ECMU, 17 médecins sur 22 (77 %) l’expliquaient par un manque de formation. Dans le même temps, l’intérêt porté à l’ECMU par les urgentistes était coté à 7 ± 2 sur une échelle de 0 à 9. Les facteurs associés à la fréquence de la pratique de l’ECMU étaient le sexe (p < 0,001), le type d’activité (p = 0,005), le type de formation à l’échographie (p < 0,001) et l’ancienneté d’équipement de son service en échographe (p < 0,001).

Conclusion : Cette enquête a montré que la pratique régulière était majoritaire avec un intérêt porté par les praticiens à l’ECMU élevé. Cependant, le frein principal à son développement était un niveau de formation jugé insuffisant par certains praticiens.

Cost-effectiveness of the Cardiac Component of the Focused Assessment of Sonography in Trauma Examination in Blunt Trauma

BACKGROUND

Blunt cardiac injury severe enough to require surgical intervention (sBCI) is an exceedingly rare event occurring in approximately 1 out of every 1600 trauma patients. While performing the cardiac component of the Focused Assessment of Sonography in Trauma (cFAST) exam is effective in penetrating trauma, it is unclear whether it is of value in blunt trauma given the low prevalence of sBCI, the imperfect test characteristics of the FAST exam, and the rate of incidental pericardial effusion.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine through decision analysis whether performing the cFAST exam is cost-effective in the evaluation of hypotensive and normotensive blunt trauma patients.

METHODS

We created two decision analytic models using commercially available software (TreeAgePro2011) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the cFAST in hypotensive (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) and normotensive blunt trauma patients. Clinical probabilities were obtained from published data. Costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement and charge data. The willingness-to-pay threshold was $50,000/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed over plausible ranges using available literature.

RESULTS

In hypotensive patients, for the base case scenario of a 34-year-old with blunt trauma, the cFAST strategy had a cost of $42,882.70 and an effectiveness of 25.3597 QALYs, whereas the no cFAST strategy had a cost of $42,753.52 and an effectiveness of 25.3532 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $19,918/QALY. For normotensive patients the cFAST strategy had a cost of $18,331.03 and an effectiveness of 23.2817 QALYs, whereas the no cFAST strategy had a cost of $18,207.58 and an effectiveness of 23.2814 QALYs. The ICER was $465,867/QALY. In the sensitivity analyses, age, probability of death from sBCI with prompt treatment, and probability of sBCI were the main drivers of variability in the model outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The cFAST for blunt trauma is cost-effective for hypotensive but not for normotensive patients. The ICER for hypotensive patients was more than 20 times higher than the ICER for normotensive patients. Our results suggest that performing the cFAST exam may not be an effective use of resources in normotensive blunt trauma patients.

Implementation of a successful incentive-based ultrasound credentialing program for emergency physicians

Introducion:

With the rapid expansion of emergency ultrasound, resident education in ultrasound has become more clearly developed and broadly integrated. However, there still exists a lack of guidance in the training of physicians already in practice to become competent in this valuable skill. We sought to employ a step-wise, goal-directed, incentive-based credentialing program to educate emergency physicians in the use of emergency ultrasound. Successful completion of this program was the primary outcome.

Methods:

The goal was for the physicians to gain competency in 8 basic ultrasound examinations types: aorta, focused assessment with sonography in trauma, cardiac, renal, biliary, transabdominal pelvic, transvaginal pelvic, and deep venous thrombosis. We separated the 2.5 year training program into 4 distinct blocks, with each block focusing on 2 of the ultrasound examination types. Each block consisted of didactic and hands-on sessions with the goal of the physician completing 25 technically-adequate studies of each examination type. There was a financial incentive associated with completion of these requirements.

Results:

A total of 31 physicians participated in the training program. Only one physician, who retired prior to the end of the 2.5 year period, did not successfully complete the program. All have applied for and received hospital privileging in emergency ultrasound and incorporated it into their daily practice.

Conclusion:

We found that a step-wise, incentive-based ultrasound training program with a combination of didactics and ample hands-on teaching was successful in the training of physicians already in practice.

The efficacy and value of emergency medicine: a supportive literature review

Study objectives

The goal of this study was to identify publications in the medical literature that support the efficacy or value of Emergency Medicine (EM) as a medical specialty and of clinical care delivered by trained emergency physicians. In this study we use the term "value" to refer both to the "efficacy of clinical care" in terms of achieving desired patient outcomes, as well as "efficiency" in terms of effective and/or cost-effective utilization of healthcare resources in delivering emergency care. A comprehensive listing of publications describing the efficacy or value of EM has not been previously published. It is anticipated that the accumulated reference list generated by this study will serve to help promote awareness of the value of EM as a medical specialty, and acceptance and development of the specialty of EM in countries where EM is new or not yet fully established.

Methods

The January 1995 to October 2010 issues of selected journals, including the EM journals with the highest article impact factors, were reviewed to identify articles of studies or commentaries that evaluated efficacy, effectiveness, and/or value related to EM as a specialty or to clinical care delivered by EM practitioners. Articles were included if they found a positive or beneficial effect of EM or of EM physician-provided medical care. Additional articles that had been published prior to 1995 or in other non-EM journals already known to the authors were also included.

Results

A total of 282 articles were identified, and each was categorized into one of the following topics: efficacy of EM for critical care and procedures (31 articles), efficacy of EM for efficiency or cost of care (30 articles), efficacy of EM for public health or preventive medicine (34 articles), efficacy of EM for radiology (11 articles), efficacy of EM for trauma or airway management (27 articles), efficacy of EM for using ultrasound (56 articles), efficacy of EM faculty (34 articles), efficacy of EM residencies (24 articles), and overviews and editorials of EM efficacy and value (35 articles).

Conclusion

There is extensive medical literature that supports the efficacy and value for both EM as a medical specialty and for emergency patient care delivered by trained EM physicians.