The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Smart Pump–Electronic Health Record (EHR) Interoperability with Auto-Documentation is Associated with Increased Submission of Infusion-Therapy Billing Claims at a Community Hospital
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Smart pump-electronic health record (EHR) interoperability has been demonstrated to reduce adverse events and increase documentation and billing accuracy. However, relatively little is known about the impact of interoperability on infusion therapy billing claims and hospital finances. OBJECTIVE: )-coded infusion-therapy billing claims submissions. METHODS: At Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health (Lancaster, PA, USA), infusion-therapy billing data were collected for 158,379 patient days (a visit to the emergency department [ED] or 24 h admission to a non-ED unit) and divided into two groups: 78,241 pre- and 80,138 post-auto-documentation. The count and types of submitted CPT-coded claims were analyzed for ED/non-ED groups, inpatient/outpatient status and non-ED unit where the infusion was administered. Dollar amounts for CPT codes were calculated using Medicare Addendum B 2017. Patient day and CPT code counts were converted to annualized values to facilitate analysis. RESULTS: Patient days did not increase significantly from pre- to post-auto-documentation, whereas annualized submitted CPT-coded claims increased significantly by 14.5% (p < 0.001). The corresponding billing claim dollar value increased by $US1,147,652 (13.5%). ED patient days increased by 2.0% (p = 0.44), whereas submitted CPT-coded claims increased significantly by 4.0% (p < 0.001) and $US478,980 (7.4%). Non-ED patient days increased by 2.8% (p = 0.2), whereas CPT-coded claims increased significantly by 31.7% (p < 0.001) and $US668,672 (34.0%). The total number of submitted CPT-coded claims increased by 13.4% for inpatients and 12.3% for outpatients. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that auto-documentation of infusion-therapy services may have a positive impact on hospital financial performance, which could help drive adoption of this technology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
By supporting seamless health data sharing, interoperability solutions take over labor-intensive activities, limit manual tasks, reduce redundant work, and eliminate the burden placed on providers by payers.
“By supporting seamless health data sharing, interoperability solutions are smoothly taking over labor-intensive activities backlogged in systems inboxes, limiting the amount of tasks that require manual touches, reducing redundant work, and eliminating the burden placed on providers by payers [20].”
From Interoperability of heterogeneous health information systems: a systematic literature review (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Benefits and Risks of Using Smart Pumps to Reduce Medication Error Rates: A Systematic Review
Ohashi, K., Dalleur, O., Dykes, P. C., & Bates, D. W. (2014) · Drug Safety · doi:10.1007/s40264-014-0232-1 · Cited by 176
Electronic Health Records and Ambulatory Quality of Care
with the HITEC Investigators, Kern, L. M., Barrón, Y., Dhopeshwarkar, R. V., Edwards, A. M., & Kaushal, R. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2237-8 · Cited by 142
Preventing medication errors with smart infusion technology
Wilson, K., & Sullivan, M. (2004) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.1093/ajhp/61.2.177 · Cited by 111
Eskew, J. A., Jacobi, J., Buss, W. F., et al. (2002) · Hospital Pharmacy · doi:10.1177/001857870203701112 · Cited by 58
Biltoft, J. M., & Finneman, L. (2018) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp161058 · Cited by 57
Intravenous Medication Safety System Averts High-risk Medication Errors and Provides Actionable Data
Fields, M., & Peterman, J. (2005) · Nursing Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1097/00006216-200501000-00013 · Cited by 53
National Physician Survey: EMR use at 75%
Collier, R. (2014) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4957 · Cited by 52
An Intravenous Medication Safety System
Hatcher, I., Sullivan, M., HUTCHINSON, J. H., et al. (2004) · JONA The Journal of Nursing Administration · doi:10.1097/00005110-200410000-00001 · Cited by 49
Implementation of an i.v. medication safety system
Williams, C. K., & Maddox, R. R. (2005) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.1093/ajhp/62.5.530 · Cited by 46
The long-term financial impact of electronic health record implementation
Howley, M. J., Chou, E. Y., Hansen, N., & Dalrymple, P. W. (2015) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002686 · Cited by 44
Adler‐Milstein, J., & Jha, A. K. (2014) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0023 · Cited by 39
Intravenous Infusion Safety Technology: Return on Investment
Danello, S., Maddox, R. R., & Schaack, G. J. (2009) · Hospital Pharmacy · doi:10.1310/hpj4408-680 · Cited by 17
EHR Adoption and Cost of Care – Evidence from Patient Safety Indicators
Shen, J. J., Epané, J. P., Weech-Maldonado, R. J., Shan, G., & Liu, L. (2015) · Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) · Cited by 5
(2013) · PubMed · Cited by 5
Webb, M. L., Bohl, D. D., Fischer, J. M., et al. (2018) · PubMed · Cited by 3
Does Hospital Electronic Medical Record Adoption Lead To Upcoding or More Accurate Coding
Joiner, G. G. K., & Lin, J. (2016) · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- American Medical Association. CPT® (Current Procedural Terminology). Available from: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt-current-procedural-terminology . Accessed 31 Aug 2018.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interoperability of heterogeneous health information systems: a systematic literature review
Torab-Miandoab, A., Samad-Soltani, T., Jodati, A., & Rezaei-Hachesu, P. (2023) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-023-02115-5 · Cited by 393
Metadata
- Authors
- Suess, T. M., Beard, J. W., Ripchinski, M., Eberts, M., Patrick, K., & Tharappel, L. J. P.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster General Hospital (US)
- ICU Medical (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Beard, John W.
- Venue
- PharmacoEconomics - Open
- Published
- 2019-03-04
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 619-629
- ISSN
- 2509-4254 (ISSN-L)
- 2509-4262
- PMC
- PMC6861392
- OpenAlex
- W2918213548
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 1.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PharmacoEconomics - Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
- Keywords
- smart pumps, electronic health records interoperability, CPT codes, hospital financial performance, community hospitals, emergency department
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
