Abstract
Objective: To determine if the medical record might overestimate the quality of care through false, and potentially unethical, documentation by physicians.
Design: Prospective trial comparing two methods for measuring the quality of care for four common outpatient conditions: (1) structured reports by standardised patients (SPs) who presented unannounced to the physicians' clinics, and (2) abstraction of the medical records generated during these visits.
Setting: The general medicine clinics of two veterans affairs medical centres.
Participants: Twenty randomly selected physicians (10 at each site) from among eligible second and third year internal medicine residents and attending physicians.
Main measurements: Explicit criteria were used to score the medical records of physicians and the reports of SPs generated during 160 visits (8 cases x 20 physicians). Individual scoring items were categorised into four domains of clinical performance: history, physical examination, treatment, and diagnosis. To determine the false positive rate, physician entries were classified as false positive (documented in the record but not reported by the SP), false negative, true positive, and true negative.
Results: False positives were identified in the medical record for 6.4% of measured items. The false positive rate was higher for physical examination (0.330) and diagnosis (0.304) than for history (0.166) and treatment (0.082). For individual physician subjects, the false positive rate ranged from 0.098 to 0.397.
Conclusions: These data indicate that the medical record falsely overestimates the quality of important dimensions of care such as the physical examination. Though it is doubtful that most subjects in our study participated in regular, intentional falsification, we cannot exclude the possibility that false positives were in some instances intentional, and therefore fraudulent, misrepresentations. Further research is needed to explore the questions raised but incompletely answered by this research.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (83.0 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Badger L. W., deGruy F., Hartman J., Plant M. A., Leeper J., Ficken R., Templeton B., Nutt L. Stability of standardized patients' performance in a study of clinical decision making. Fam Med. 1995 Feb;27(2):126–131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baldwin D. C., Jr, Daugherty S. R., Rowley B. D. Unethical and unprofessional conduct observed by residents during their first year of training. Acad Med. 1998 Nov;73(11):1195–1200. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199811000-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cain J. M. Is deception for reimbursement in obstetrics and gynecology justified? Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Sep;82(3):475–478. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Emanuel E. J., Dubler N. N. Preserving the physician-patient relationship in the era of managed care. JAMA. 1995 Jan 25;273(4):323–329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Emanuel E. J., Emanuel L. L. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992 Apr 22;267(16):2221–2226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Garnick D. W., Fowles J., Lawthers A. G., Weiner J. P., Parente S. T., Palmer R. H. Focus on quality: profiling physicians' practice patterns. J Ambul Care Manage. 1994 Jul;17(3):44–75. doi: 10.1097/00004479-199407000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gilbert E. H., Lowenstein S. R., Koziol-McLain J., Barta D. C., Steiner J. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: Where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Mar;27(3):305–308. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70264-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Glassman P. A., Luck J., O'Gara E. M., Peabody J. W. Using standardized patients to measure quality: evidence from the literature and a prospective study. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000 Nov;26(11):644–653. doi: 10.1016/s1070-3241(00)26055-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Green M. J., Farber N. J., Ubel P. A., Mauger D. T., Aboff B. M., Sosman J. M., Arnold R. M. Lying to each other: when internal medicine residents use deception with their colleagues. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Aug 14;160(15):2317–2323. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.15.2317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lawthers A. G., Palmer R. H., Edwards J. E., Fowles J., Garnick D. W., Weiner J. P. Developing and evaluating performance measures for ambulatory care quality: a preliminary report of the DEMPAQ project. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1993 Dec;19(12):552–565. doi: 10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30036-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leonardo J. A. Health care fraud: a critical challenge. Manag Care Q. 1996 Winter;4(1):67–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Luck J., Peabody J. W., Dresselhaus T. R., Lee M., Glassman P. How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record. Am J Med. 2000 Jun 1;108(8):642–649. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(00)00363-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McDonald C. J., Overhage J. M., Dexter P., Takesue B. Y., Dwyer D. M. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Oct 15;127(8 Pt 2):675–682. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peabody J. W., Luck J., Glassman P., Dresselhaus T. R., Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000 Apr 5;283(13):1715–1722. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.13.1715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rubin H. R., Rogers W. H., Kahn K. L., Rubenstein L. V., Brook R. H. Watching the doctor-watchers. How well do peer review organization methods detect hospital care quality problems? JAMA. 1992 May 6;267(17):2349–2354. doi: 10.1001/jama.267.17.2349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ryan T. J., Anderson J. L., Antman E. M., Braniff B. A., Brooks N. H., Califf R. M., Hillis L. D., Hiratzka L. F., Rapaport E., Riegel B. J. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 Nov 1;28(5):1328–1428. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(96)00392-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]