Kona Community Hospital Chooses AHIMA Physician Query Templates to Improve Quality of Health Records

The American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) announced today that Kona Community Hospital in Kealakekua, Hawai’i, has chosen to use the AHIMA library of physician query templates available in the mobile query platform from Artifact Health, an Iodine solution.

Iodine Software Recognized as 2022 Best in KLAS CDI Software

AUSTIN, TX – February 8, 2022 – Iodine Software has been named the market leader for CDI Software by KLAS Research in their 2022 Best in KLAS: Software and Services Report. Iodine ranked #1 with a score of 91.2, and this achievement follows AwareCDI™ receiving the top overall performance score in the 2021 KLAS Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) Report. In 2021 Iodine Software acquired Chartwise, who was also a top performer in the 2022 KLAS report with a score of 89.2.

The Best in KLAS report recognizes software and services companies who excel at helping healthcare professionals improve patient care. The report noted that 95% of respondents answered “yes,” both Iodine AwareCDI and Chartwise “avoid charging for every little thing” and AwareCDI was “part of long-term plans”. All rankings are a direct result of the feedback of thousands of providers over the last year. “This award reflects our commitment to delivering the most powerful, predictive tools as well as exceptional service and support to every client, working hard to be responsive, timely and proactive to our clients’ unique needs, said William Chan, CEO and co-founder of Iodine. “This Best in KLAS award is especially meaningful because it reflects the positive experiences of our clients.”

Iodine’s AwareCDI solution empowers organizations to scale their most precious and limited resources, their clinical talent, through automation of clinical work that otherwise would require highly trained and specialized staff to complete. Clients report higher productivity and job satisfaction for CDI teams and physicians, complete and accurate documentation, and capturing more earned revenue. The Iodine AwareCDI Suite helps 550+ hospitals to collectively recognize $1.5 billion1 in additional appropriate reimbursement annually.

According to KLAS Research President Adam Gale, “The Best in KLAS report and the awards it contains set the standard of excellence for software and services firms. The Best in KLAS award serves as a signal to provider and payer organizations that they should expect excellence from the winning vendors.”

To download the full 2022 KLAS Clinical Documentation Improvement Report, visit : https://klasresearch.com/report/2022-best-in-klas-awards-software-and-professional-services/2770

KLAS Research will honor Iodine and the other segment winners for 2022 in a ceremony held at HIMSS March 14th.

About Iodine Software:
Iodine is an enterprise AI company that is championing a radical rethink of how to create value for healthcare professionals, leaders, and their organizations: automating complex clinical tasks, generating insights and empowering intelligent care. Iodine’s powerful predictive engine complements the skills and judgment of healthcare professionals by interpreting raw clinical data to generate real-time, highly focused, predictive insights that clinicians and hospital administrators can leverage to dramatically augment the management of care delivery – facilitating critical decisions, scaling clinical workforces through automation, and improving the financial position of health systems. For more information, please visit iodinesoftware.com.

About KLAS Research:
KLAS has been providing accurate, honest, and impartial insights for the healthcare IT (HIT) industry since 1996. The KLAS mission is to improve the world’s healthcare by amplifying the voice of providers and payers. The scope of our research is constantly expanding to best fit market needs as technology becomes increasingly sophisticated. KLAS finds the hard-to-get HIT data by building strong relationships with our payer and provider friends in the industry. Learn more at klasresearch.com

1. Figures are based on a $6,000 modeled base rate and actual measured MCC capture performance from the 2019 Iodine Performance Cohort Analysis of 339 facilities that compared measured MCC capture and CMI impact for the Iodine usage period 9/1/2018-8/31/2019 against pre-Iodine baseline performance.

Mid Revenue Cycle Management: How to Measure, Manage, and Minimize Leakage

Key Takeaways:

  • Clear, consistent and complete documentation is crucial to the bottom line: it drives the final reporting of codes, enables accurate reimbursement, and minimizes denials
  • Every step of the documentation review process presents opportunity for leakage, meaning leakage occurs even with high functioning CDI teams
  • Staffing shortages require CDI teams focus their work on the cases with the greatest likelihood of discrepancy between the clinical evidence and documentation – but without technology identifying these cases is an exercise in futility
  • Artificial intelligence and machine learning based on large data sets is the best kind of technology to assist in this space: it can understand patterns and recognize what’s happening in the clinical care

Iodine Intelligence tackles a new challenge in healthcare’s mid-revenue cycle every month, shedding light on problems and solutions and sharing valuable insights from industry experts. Listen to Episode 1: Mid Revenue Cycle Management: How to Measure, Manage, and Minimize Leakage to learn more.

As healthcare providers operate on tighter and tighter margins, paying close attention to both efficiency and appropriate use of resources becomes more crucial than ever. This necessitates greater accuracy and depth in documentation, and while the answer may seem to be daily patient record reviews to identify discrepancies between the clinical evidence and the documentation, the reality is there aren’t enough trained, human resources to do this. The challenge becomes: where do I deploy the staff that I do have, and how do I prioritize which cases to review.

However, between changes in clinical definitions, documentation and coding guidelines, annual updates, and quality metrics and benchmarks, knowing what to focus on and which area has the greatest return can be a daunting task for CDI teams.

“We can’t be targeting a particular metric or condition saying ‘This is how I’m going to solve all problems,’ because it’s only solving a very small problem. Documentation integrity is no longer just important to a single payer or a single type of patient, it’s important in every case”

– Fran Jurcak, Chief Clinical Strategist

Technology may hold the answer for overwhelmed CDI teams. Artificial intelligence (AI) coupled with machine learning (ML) can look for discrepancies between the clinical evidence and what is actually documented, and then highlight those cases for CDIS to review. Software solutions can introduce efficient and automated workflows. Leveraged appropriately, this trifecta allows CDI specialists to focus on the right charts, find discrepancies, and fix any problems.

‘Its not about replacing people it’s about augmenting their ability to do their job well. Creating efficiency in their workflow and really allowing them… to really focus in on what they can do to help. Because in the end it’s about ensuring that we’re able to provide quality care to patients” – Fran Jurcak, Chief Clinical Strategist


Artificial Intelligence Myth Vs Reality: Where Do Healthcare Experts Think We Stand?

Read how healthcare is rich with examples of successful outcomes from AI technology paired with the right clearly defined, narrow problem.

Quality Rankings and Documentation Accuracy

Executive Summary

Healthcare organizations expend significant resources ensuring that they provide safe, efficient, and equitable care to their consumers. The measurement used to assess and compare the quality of that care is taken from the documentation in medical records and reported to the public through a handful of quality ratings organizations, each with their own analytics frameworks for quality assessment. These consistently published lists have thrust healthcare decision-making into the public consciousness, and consumers of care have become increasingly knowledgeable regarding variability in the quality and cost of care. As a result, consumers are utilizing these reports to make healthcare decisions causing healthcare leaders to become increasingly concerned regarding the accuracy of the data that measures the quality of care being provided. 

In a perfect world, the quality of care provided during a patient encounter would never be questioned. But too often, the medical record documentation—that becomes the platform for measurement of the metrics that contribute to these published quality ratings and rankings—lacks specificity and clarity. This can negatively impact healthcare organizations by causing appearances of poor performance in these publications. Budgetary constraints, logistical hurdles, human error, and most importantly, documentation inaccuracies contribute to inaccurate measurement of the quality of care being provided and underreport the positive outcomes patients are achieving. 

Healthcare scrutiny and evaluations—while necessary—contribute to the problem as there is no “gold standard” for quality. Therefore, organizations are forced to satisfy multiple quality ratings systems at once, each with its unique rating formula. According to an article featured by the American Hospital Association, this can “offer conflicting results, which may mislead stakeholders relying on the ratings to identify top-performing hospitals.”¹ 

Additionally, the ratings systems may be flawed. In fact, according to an NEJM Catalyst report, none of the major ratings systems earned an ‘A.’ Each of the ratings systems had a deficiency that could cause inaccuracies in the reporting of a healthcare organization’s performance.²

To address poor performance in these reports, healthcare organizations should first understand the most common root causes of inaccuracies by ensuring that the documentation of care provided is consistently accurate. Indeed, many organizations have attempted to solve the appearance of poor quality of care by implementing clinical documentation integrity programs. 

However, it’s difficult to know whether there are real quality of care issues within the organization or if there is a problem with documentation integrity because there is no standard metric available today that can reflect the accuracy of documentation. So, how does an organization know when the documentation will translate into an accurate picture of the quality of care being provided? 

There is no quick and easy answer…yet. But technological advancements in the measurement of accuracy are on the horizon. In the meantime, understanding how documentation accuracy can help improve a healthcare organization holistically is paramount. If we look at the state of documentation accuracy today, we can better understand the impact and why it will be important to measure going forward. 

Learn more about the impact of clinical documentation accuracy on quality metrics with the instant download!

About the Author

Fran Jurcak
Iodine Software – Chief Clinical Strategist

Fran Jurcak is an accomplished senior executive with over 30 years of success in healthcare practice, education, consulting and technology. As a healthcare consultant, Fran leveraged her clinical and coding knowledge to support process improvement in the mid-revenue cycle, particularly in the clinical documentation integrity space. These process improvements allowed her clients to successfully minimize mid-cycle leakage and accurately report outcomes of care. She is currently the Chief Clinical Strategist at Iodine Software, where she has worked to bring artificial intelligence and machine learning technology to concurrent CDI workflow. Fran is active in ACDIS, received the 2017 ACDIS award for Professional Achievement, and is the author of the CCDS Study Guide. She is recognized as a national speaker and author for ACDIS and AHIMA and is currently serving a 3-year term on NAHRI’s advisory board. 

¹ https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2019-08-15-study-hospital-quality-rating-systems-need-improvement 

² https://www.hpnonline.com/patient-satisfaction/article/21092979/inaccuracies-revealed-in-hospital-quality-rating-systems