-
What does
this software program do for me?
-
For what
cases is this software useful?
-
I like to
interview the patient myself. Why do I need this?
-
How long
will it take my patients to complete a computer
interview?
-
I don't
usually gather the volume of information that
Instant Medical HistoryT provides. How do I handle
that amount of information?
-
What
happens if the patient can't read?
-
What
happens if the output from the patient doesn't make
any sense?
-
Can I
really get paid more for administering psychological
scales?
-
Of what
use are the Health Maintenance Guidelines?
-
How does
documentation by IMH affect my charges?
-
Why don't
I just use a piece of paper and let the patient fill
out the questions?
-
How does
the software program operate?
-
On what
type of patient will this software program give me
the most helpful information?
-
What am I
really going to get out of this program?
-
How will
my patients like this?
Instant Medical History (IMH) is a computerized patient
interview about the history of present illness, review
of systems, and medical history. IMH asks the patient
questions to give the physician caring for the patient
more information prior to the visit. The information is
summarized and passed to the (electronic) medical
record, reducing the interview time and documentation
requirements for the physician. The AAFP article shows
it could save 5 minutes of physician time per visit.
Instant Medical History is
useful in 98% of the chief complaints seen by a family
physician or internist. There is a relevant
questionnaire for 80-90% of the complaints seen by
specialists. We are also able to add questionnaires
very quickly for patient complaints that do not have
existing questionnaires.
IMH helps with the doctor-patient
relationship and the medical interview. This software
program simply gathers data. Data gathering enhances
doctor-patient communication by giving the physician
more information before seeing the patient to better
evaluate the problems. Physicians will still interview
the patient to get a personal feel for the individual.
The software simply helps start the process by giving
the physician areas to focus upon, and providing
documentation of the negatives. Not many physicians can
remember all of the questions to ask about every
presenting complaint in medicine much less document them
thoroughly for third party review. Another helpful use
it to save the physicians from having to find paper
forms for standardized self rating scales and scoring
them during the patient visit.
Interview software takes longer than a physician would
to gain the same information. If you normally take 5
minutes to gather the patient's history, Instant Medical
History will require 10 minutes. The average interview
takes less than 5 minutes, but keep in mind that patient
entered data is free. It is patient time instead of
physician time.
A valuable implementation of
Instant Medical History is on a physician's web site.
By having the patient complete the interview at home
before the visit, the time the patient takes to complete
the interview does not change the office workflow or
require the patient to arrive early at the office to
complete the data entry.
Use the Level of Detail settings to reduce the amount of
information. Learning to review the information
presented by Instant Medical History takes some time.
After that, the assimilation of the history of the
present illness takes only the few seconds.
The output of Instant Medical
History is absolutely essential if physicians are going
to be paid for their work. Only by documenting to the
highest levels will they be paid for the work they
actually do by third parties. Since the information
from Instant Medical History is gathered directly from
the patient, its authenticity is unquestioned by
third-parties once reviewed by the physician.
Nothing. You have screened for
literacy. Valuable information is gained if a patient is
known to be illiterate. Patients who can't read should
not be given pills that are the same color. An
illiterate patient given two small white pills, Lanoxin
and Lasix, and told to double his Lasix will be dead.
Written instructions will be worthless. Most patients
will not admit that they cannot read, but rather they
will say that they 'forgot their glasses'. The output
from the illiterate patient will be obvious when
reviewed by the clinician. Unless the patient walked to
the office, someone who could read in order to pass the
drivers test brought the illiterate patient to the
facility. These family members can read the questions to
the patient. These individuals are also free resources
and willing assistants for the medical office.
The same thing that happens when you get a spurious
laboratory result, clinical judgment is necessary to
determine why. This is the main reason that computers
will never replace physicians, only help them. Patient
provided data must be verified by the clinician since it
is raw data directly from the patient. The information
must be filtered by the practitioner before it has
merit. Usually the practitioner asks open ended
questions directed by the input. If the data doesn't
correlate with the clinician's impression, then there
are three possibilities: 1) the patient could not read
and pretended to; 2) the patient has an organic brain
syndrome, tried to hide his mental disability, and could
not manipulate the instructions for the screening, 3)
the patient willfully attempted to deceive the program
to hide something from the provider, e.g. drug seeking
or malingering.
Every practicing physician asks
more questions in a medical interview than documented on
the office visit note. Every physician takes a better
medical history than is apparent from any medical chart
review. IMH simply records data to justify charges
deserved anyway. The third party notion that if it is
not documented, it didn't happen, is reality. IMH allows
the physicians to get paid for what they were really
doing all along but did not have time to record. The
additional documentation of self rating scales is an
added benefit that is also good quality medical care.
CPT Procedure Code 96100 Psychological Tests
administered by a physician simply requires the written
report output by IMH in order to be reimbursed as any
other normal procedure. It is cheaper and better
medicine to get the diagnosis of psychological disorders
earlier and avoid unnecessary tests and procedures.
You will need to verify this type of reimbursement with
your payers.
Health Maintenance guidelines are
optionally embedded in the program to allow every
patient to be queried for preventive measures like
immunizations, mammograms, and blood tests depending on
age and risk factors. Many electronic medical record
systems record this information as well, but by asking
the patient directly, the medical record information is
verified as correct. In a fee for service patient,
increasing the number of elective procedures can have a
substantial impact on revenue.
When higher levels of care are rendered, higher fees are
justified. The higher levels require the extensive
documentation which IMH provides. For example,
documentation of a majority of the qualifiers of a
symptom range from onset, duration, severity, location,
radiation, ameliorating factors, exacerbating factors,
and social concomitants. Documentation of a Review of
Systems requires notation of eleven of fourteen organ
systems.
Recent CMS rules specify extensive documentation
guidelines. If your charts are audited and the
documentation is not clear to the chart reviewers, you
could be asked to refund payments and charged with
Medicare fraud. For example, suppose you performed a
health screening exam on a 70 year old well adult and
your notes do not reflect positives and negatives for
eleven of fourteen organ systems, a complete Social
History including sexual activity and a Family History.
You may be asked to send a check back to Medicare for
the difference in the payment and an ordinary office
visit. These overcharges would be added to triple the
amount charged and a fine of $10,000 per chart. This
denial will likely trigger a deeper audit of your charts
which may result in every detailed or comprehensive
examination charge you have made for several years being
subject to refund, penalty, fine, and prosecution for
Medicare fraud.
Literature on filling out forms versus computer
interviewing is over 50 years old. If you go to the Mayo
Clinic Proceedings January 2003, there is a review of
the literature. It cites the disadvantages of forms as
(1) Patients do not complete the form without skipping
questions. The problem the clinician faces is that if
the form is not filled out completely the clinician is
responsible for ensuring that this is corrected. Mayo
found 10% of forms were not missing information. (2)
Forms do not branch enough. There is an excellent study
showing how Mayo failed trying to use forms to prepare
patients for specialties (3) Forms also have
difficulties with changes. For example, if there is a
SARS epidemic you need to add four questions to your
histories. The American Family Physician in one year
had 44 forms it published to help clinicians practice
better by providing more data. In summary, patients
prefer computers to forms and provide better data.
The questions are always answered
by the patient. There are two formats: Nurse and
Patient. The formats have to do with who makes the
decision about the presenting compliant through the menu
selections to get to the actual questions. The Nurse
format is intended for the exam room. The patient format
is intended for the waiting room. The menus can be
totally patient driven (Patient Waiting Room Format) or
initiated by the nurse (Nurse Exam Room Format) and then
patient driven for the actual questions.
Patients who are the most difficult for you as a
physician will prove to be the best for the computer.
Humans do high level integrative tasks well. Arriving at
a diagnosis after reviewing data gathered from a
history, physical examination, and laboratory
investigation is an example of a complex integrative
task that we do well. Computers do low level tasks that
are repetitive, boring and monotonous very fast. Asking
all of the questions related to a complete Review of
Systems is a mundane task that physicians do every day
over and over again that a computer could do well. If
the medical history is obvious, a broken arm for
example, then there is no reason to use a computer. A
good rule of thumb is that if the nurse knows the
diagnosis before the physician, then the computer is not
going to help very much except as ancillary
documentation.
You may find it easier to be a physician because a
boring, monotonous part of your job is done - data
gathering and documentation. When you gain confidence in
IMH, you will find your efficiency of seeing patients
increases because you have an electronic assistant that
makes your job easier. This electronic assistant will
ask questions as consistently at 4PM on Fridays when the
waiting room is full as it does at 8AM on Mondays after
you return from a vacation. That consistency can
facilitate better medical care.
More importantly Instant Medical
History will help you have the documentation recorded
in your medical record to charge for the services that
you are performing. The financial benefit of installing
Instant Medical History can be substantially increasing
revenue to a physician as much as $4000 per month.
Louisiana State University (LSU)
and the University of Wisconsin (U of W) have both
published studies indicating that almost 90% of patients
want to complete Instant Medical History. When you
focus on patient satisfaction, communication is the top
issue. Because the questionnaires are about them,
patients perceive that the computer assists physicians
in discussing the most important items. Within the
limited time of a visit, physicians and patients
communicate faster about the important issues, creating
a stronger physician-patient bond. Practices using
Instant Medical History find that their patient
satisfaction increases from this.