↓ Skip to main content

Assessing medical student documentation using simulated charts in emergency medicine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing medical student documentation using simulated charts in emergency medicine
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1314-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wirachin Hoonpongsimanont, Irene Velarde, Christopher Gilani, Michael Louthan, Shahram Lotfipour

Abstract

The 1995 Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) guidelines stated that providers may only use the review of systems and past medical, family, social history in student documentation for billing purposes; therefore, many providers viewed the student documentation as an extraneous step and chose not to allow medical students to document patient visits. This workflow negatively affected medical student education in documentation skills. Although the negative impact on students' documentation skills is obvious, areas of deficits are unknown. Understanding the area of deficits will benefit future curriculums to prepare prospective resident physicians for proper documentation. We aimed to assess areas of deficits in documentation of fourth-year medical students according to HCFA billing guidelines. We conducted a prospective study of fourth-year medical students' simulated chart documentations at a United States medical school from May 2014 to May 2015. We evaluated students' simulated charts from an online learning tool using simulated cases for completeness according to HCFA guidelines and analyzed data using descriptive statistics. We found that 98.9% (n = 90) of the charts were downcoded. Of these charts, 33.0% (n = 30) had incomplete history of present illness, 90.1% (n = 82) had incomplete review of systems, 73.6% (n = 67) had incomplete past medical, family, social history and 88.8% (n = 80) had incomplete physical exams. New curriculum should include billing guideline information and emphasize the completeness of charts according to acuity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Lecturer 2 5%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 19 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 24 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2019.
All research outputs
#6,872,564
of 25,386,384 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,169
of 3,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,054
of 344,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#23
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,384 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.