View June's Board Pack - Royal Bournemouth Hospital

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE ROYAL BOURNEMOUTH AND CHRISTCHURCH HOSPITALSNHS FOUNDATION TRUSTBOARD OF DIRECTORSMeeting Date and Part:Subject:Section:Executive Director with overallresponsibility:Author of Paper:Summary:Standards for Better Healthdomain:Action required by <strong>Board</strong> ofDirectors:10 th June 2011 Part IResults of the 2010/11 PbR AssuranceCoding Audit, by the Audit CommitteeInformationRichard RenautDirector of Service DevelopmentRichard RenautDirector of Service DevelopmentThis report is a summary of the full resultspaper following the audit on Clinical Codingfor 2010/11.Clinical and Cost EffectivenessTo note the report, actions and significantimprovements
<strong>Board</strong> of Directors – Part I10 th June 2011Results of the 2010/11 PbR Assurance Coding Audit,by the Audit Commission1. IntroductionEach year an audit of our PbR coding is undertaken by the Audit Commission, paid forby our host PCT. The full results are attached. This paper summarises the:• Key findings and messages• Updates against the proposed action plan.• Provides context as to impact of the action plan.The audit methodology is based upon a risk assessment of outlier codes and localknowledge from the PCT. This is then used to select areas for attention. 200 casenotes are then audited and used for these results.2. Key findings and messages2.1 Headline messages are that:• Coding accuracy has significantly improved.• There was a 0% financial impact of any inaccuracies.• Changes required in one aspect of cardiac coding will be a feature of the 2012/13contract.2.2 HRG error rateThis is 9.9% versus the national average of 9.1%. However, within this the two mainareas driving the number can easily be rectified (skin site of surgery coding andcoding of cardiac catheters). As a result the underlying accuracy is now much morerobust. This is also a massive improvement from the 24% error rate, which was drivenby our move to HRG4, which was hampered by being in a minority of trusts in our useof READ methodology.2.3 Procedure and diagnosis error rateThese have also massively improved, as the charts on Page 3 of the reportdemonstrate and the report which “commends” the efforts and improvements atnumerous points. These are both better than the known national average. Again theareas for improvement are relatively clearly identified and actionable, and thus havealready been applied.2.4 Key messagesThe really difficult aspects of coding improvement are:1) Widespread clinical engagement.2) Electronic notes including eIDF (Immediate Discharge Form).3) Tackling multiple consultant transfers of emergency inpatients on the system.Results of the 2010/11 PbR Assurance Clinical Coding Audit Page 1 of 3
Page 1 and 2:
THE ROYAL BOURNEMOUTH AND CHRISTCHU
Page 3 and 4: THE ROYAL BOURNEMOUTH AND CHRISTCHU
Page 5 and 6: 50/11 DECISION3% by the 4 th quarte
Page 7 and 8: 52/11 INFORMATIONClinical advice -
Page 11 and 12: Board of Directors10 June 20111 Pur
Page 13 and 14: Board of Directors10 June 2011Part
Page 15 and 16: Board of Directors10 June 2011Emerg
Page 17 and 18: Board of Directors10 June 2011C.Dif
Page 19 and 20: Board of Directors10 June 20118 15
Page 21 and 22: Board of Directors10 June 2011The t
Page 23: THE ROYAL BOURNEMOUTH AND CHRISTCHU
Page 26 and 27: The Royal Bournemouth & Christchurc
Page 30 and 31: Board of Directors Part 110 June 20
Page 32 and 33: Board of Directors Part 110 June 20
Page 34 and 35: Board of Directors10 June 2011THE R
Page 36 and 37: Where next for the NHS reforms in E
Page 56 and 57: Board of Directors - Part I10 th Ju
Page 58 and 59: Payment byresults dataassurancefram
Page 60 and 61: ContentsSummary....................
Page 62 and 63: Figure 1: HRG, procedure and diagno
Page 64 and 65: Key areas for improvements15 The ke
Page 66 and 67: Detailed reportIntroduction22 The P
Page 68 and 69: 31 The remaining 100 FCEs were sele
Page 70 and 71: 40 The HRG error rate at the Trust
Page 72 and 73: The net value of the HRGs that chan
Page 74 and 75: Follow up of previous year’s reco
Page 76 and 77: 60 A summary of the key results wil
Page 78 and 79: Appendix 2 - Action Plan (Trust)Rec
Page 80 and 81: Appendix 3 - Specialty A - General
Page 82 and 83: Financial impact of errorsTable 10:
Page 84 and 85: Example 2ID Speclty 300 ThemeEpisod
Page 86 and 87: only mentioned in the discharge sum
Page 92 and 93: changePrice of net change -£47 -0.
Page 94 and 95: 72 The following areas for improvem
Page 96 and 97: HRGs and price changes as a result
Page 98 and 99: Example 3ID Speclty 320 SpecialtyEp
Page 104 and 105:
Example 8ID Speclty 320 SpecialtyEp
Page 106 and 107:
Example 10ID Speclty 320 SpecialtyE
Page 108 and 109:
pre-audit sampleoutside of PbRPost-
Page 110 and 111:
■■provide training to the coder
Page 112 and 113:
Example 2ID Speclty 330 SubchapterE
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Example 10ID Speclty 330 Subchapter
Page 122 and 123:
Example 12ID Speclty 330 Subchapter
Page 124 and 125:
Analysis of errors - Chapter JC - S
Page 126 and 127:
Appendix 6 - HRG area EB01Z - Nonin
Page 128 and 129:
Analysis of errors - HRG EB01Z:All
Page 130 and 131:
Appendix 7 - Ungrouped original Car
Page 132 and 133:
KEYDESCRIPTIONcoding. This is where
Page 134 and 135:
KEYSee PDSCDESCRIPTIONCODED DUE TO
Page 136 and 137:
Appendix 9 - GlossaryTermExplanatio
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Catering UpdateThe first phase of t
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Board of Directors - Part I10 th Ju
Page 146 and 147:
DatePublicationInformationTitlePage
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
DatePublicationInformationPage numb
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
What Who Board Where of Directors B
Page 160:
What Who Where Board Before of Dire
show all

View June's Board Pack - Royal Bournemouth Hospital

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?