Clinical Review

Free Clinic Diagnosis Data Improvement Project Using International Classification of Diseases and Electronic Health Record


 

References

From Pacific Lutheran School of Nursing, Tacoma, WA.

Objective: This quality improvement project aimed to enhance The Olympia Free Clinic’s (TOFC) data availability using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code entry into the electronic health record (EHR). Prior to this project, TOFC lacked quality diagnosis data. This project strived to answer questions like “How many TOFC patients have diabetes?”

Methods: A new system was implemented for inputting ICD codes into Practice Fusion, the clinic’s EHR. During the initial phase, TOFC’s 21 volunteer providers entered the codes associated with the appropriate diagnosis for each of 157 encounters using a simplified map of options, including a map of the 20 most common diagnoses and a more comprehensive 60-code map.

Results: An EHR report found that 128 new diagnoses were entered during project implementation, hypertension being the most common diagnosis, followed by depression, then posttraumatic stress disorder.

Conclusion: The knowledge of patient diagnoses enabled the clinic to make more-informed decisions.

Keywords: free clinic, data, quality improvement, electronic health record, International Classification of Diseases

Data creates a starting point, a goal, background, understanding of needs and context, and allows for tracking and improvement over time. This quality improvement (QI) project for The Olympia Free Clinic (TOFC) implemented a new system for tracking patient diagnoses. The 21 primary TOFC providers were encouraged to input mapped International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) codes into the electronic health record (EHR). The clinic’s providers consisted of mostly retired, but some actively practicing, medical doctors, doctors of osteopathy, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and psychiatrists.

Previous to this project, the clinic lacked any concrete data on patient demographics or diagnoses. For example, the clinic was unable to accurately answer the National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics’ questions about how many patients TOFC providers saw with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and hyperlipidemia.1 Additionally, the needs of the clinic and its population were based on educated guesses.

Pages

Recommended Reading

80% of Americans research recommendations post-visit
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
COVID-19 has brought more complex, longer office visits
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Surgery offers best chance in cancer but needs more ‘support’
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
How to deal with offensive or impaired doctors
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Beware of private equity–owned nursing homes: study
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Adjuvant Olaparib Improves Outcomes in High-Risk, HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer Patients With Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Positive Outcomes Following a Multidisciplinary Approach in the Diagnosis and Prevention of Hospital Delirium
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Association Between Physiotherapy Outcome Measures and the Functional Independence Measure: A Retrospective Analysis
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Assessment of Same-Day Naloxone Availability in New Mexico Pharmacies
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
The Use of Nasogastric Tube Bridle Kits in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Patients
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management