Acceptable Error Rate Radiology
Contents |
ImagingUltrasoundWomen's ImagingRSNA 2015SIIM 2016Meaningful Use MAIN MENU Home Topics Modalities PACS and Informatics Practice Management Image IQ Case Studies Blog Conferences Editorial Board DI Executive Welcome Guest | acceptable error rate six sigma Login or Register Welcome My Account|My Account or Logout Connect to acceptable error rate for pharmacies other sites within the UBM Medica Network ubmslateDI-logo-ubm Search form Search Diagnostic ImagingAll Sites Topics:CT|Low
Acceptable Error Rate Manufacturing
Dose|Molecular Imaging|MRI|Nuclear Imaging|Ultrasound|Women's Imaging|RSNA 2015|SIIM 2016|Meaningful Use|Browse All TopicsAll TopicsCTLow DoseMolecular ImagingMRINuclear ImagingUltrasoundWomen's ImagingRSNA 2015SIIM 2016Meaningful Use ≡ Main menuHomeTopicsBuyer's GuideJournal MAIN MENU Home Topics Modalities
Acceptable Error Rate For Data Entry Work
PACS and Informatics Practice Management Image IQ Case Studies Blog Conferences Editorial Board DI Executive To err is human; analysis finds radiologists very human To err is human; analysis finds radiologists very human December 01, 2010 | RSNA 2010By James Brice Radiologist errors identified from an analysis of 656 imaging exams diagnostic errors in radiology paints a unique picture describing why radiologists make errors. The analysis also points to ways such mistakes can be prevented. Dr. Young W. Kim, a radiologist who practices at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu and Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, reported Tuesday at the 2010 RSNA meeting that nearly one-third of the delayed diagnoses he studied at those two military hospitals from July 2002 to January 2010, were not only missed on the first exam, but were also not recognized on subsequent radiological examinations.Moreover, Kim’s analysis provides insight into the very human world of radiological practice.In Kim’s analysis, diagnostic errors are defined as missed diagnoses that are later corrected with a definitive review. Though Kim’s definition seemed abstract, the implications of botched interpretations are quite real. They are the leading cause of malpractice litigation, accounting for twice as many claims as medication errors, Kim said.The legal liabilities associated with radiolo
News PACS/RIS/Informatics Women's Imaging Radiation Oncology Interventional Radiology Nuclear Medicine/Molecular Imaging home | subscribe | comment | resources | reprints | writers' guidelines February 2013 Error Reports — Exploring Coding Accuracy Can Improve http://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt0213p18.shtml Revenue and Compliance By Mike Bassett Radiology Today Vol. 14 No. 2 P. 18 How do you know your coding compliance is effective? Many experts in the field consider error rates to be the most significant tool for assessing your organizations coding compliance. There are various methods of determining chart error rates, but the two most acceptable error common are the “code-over-code” and “record-over-record” methods, according to Rose Dunn, MBA, RHIA, CPA, FACHE, chief operating officer for healthcare consulting firm First Class Solutions, Inc. In each approach, several charts are selected for review. The code-over-code approach divides the total number of correct codes by the total possible number of correct codes, while the acceptable error rate record-over-record approach divides the number of records correctly coded by the total records in the sample. According to the AHIMA publication Benchmarking to Improve Coding Accuracy and Productivity, the more widely recognized record-over-record method provides the advantage of being less labor intensive. On the other hand, it is considered to be more subjective because it may not include a definition of what counts as an error. Some organizations may adjust the error rate based on the perceived impact of the errors. The more specific code-over-code approach is deemed more objective because errors are more clearly defined. According to the AHIMA publication, it is also more effective in identifying trends for educational purposes or process improvement. The disadvantages of code over code are that it takes longer, represents a change in thinking, and requires more of a learning curve for auditors. “Organizations prefer [record over record] for its simplicity,” Dunn says. “However, a gauge of coding accuracy is probably better reflected with the [code-over-code approach].” Lori-L
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:52:58 GMT by s_hv997 (squid/3.5.20)