PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11080025

C3: A comprehensive physician activity and billing tool

Abstract

Purpose: The Clinical Charge Capture system (C3) was developed at the University of Michigan to increase the efficiency and accuracy with which information about physician activity and billing is tracked in academic medical centers. Description: This Oracle-based, Visual Basic system integrates the operating room scheduling system, transcription database, clinical data repository, referring physician database, and IDX to allow physicians and staff to perform paperless and on-line standard tasks such as preauthorizing procedures; creating a bill which describes the charges for procedures performed along with their supporting diagnoses; identifying inpatient daily care and consult charges; dictating, editing, signing, and providing attestations for procedural and inpatient notes (menu-driven boilerplate notes are used for common procedures); submitting of charges on-line to IDX; and downloading of payment data from IDX. A messaging system between physicians and billing specialists allows questions to be posed regarding coding issues and options. Summary information about charges is presented and the status of the bill as it progresses through the internal review and billing process is demonstrated. Any missing data are flagged such that delivery of a bill is accurate, timely, and complete. Outpatient clinic visit charges are acquired on line using bar code technology with direct download of clinic charges to IDX. Generation of charges and referral letters may be performed immediately following the performance of a procedure or patient encounter or subsequently in the office. Resident activity is also tracked. Finally, search functions are provided which allow the program to serve as a clinical information research database. Results: The time to bill submission for operative procedures in fiscal year 1996 (Pre-C3) when compared to 1999 (Post-C3) decreased in each individual surgical division (See figure)as well as for the overall Department (Total: mean Pre-C3=40 days, mean Post-C3=8 days). The average bill was increased by 9% for each primary charge submitted. Conclusions: We conclude that this system has the potential to enhance the efficiency, accuracy, and organization of routine physician documentation, billing, and data collection activities.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Hirschl, C Sikina, J Keller, K Kastle, K McConnell, L Greenfield, M Plachta. 2000. C3: A comprehensive physician activity and billing tool. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11080025/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗