Assessing the quality of the after-visit summary (AVS) in a primary-care clinic

Tasaduq H Mir, Amimi S Osayande, Kimberly Kone, Kate Bridges, Philip Day

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objective: As part of Affordable Care Act, the Centers for Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend physicians provide patients with an After-Visit Summary (AVS) following a clinic visit. Information should be relevant and actionable with specific instructions regarding their visit and health. Until recently, this recommendation was included as part of meeting the standard for Stage 1 Meaningful Use for all physicians using electronic-health-record (EHR) technology. In 2016, CMS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to institute parts of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Merit-based Incentive Payment System, which continues to focus on quality, resource use, and use of certified EHR technology. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of the AVS for patients seen at the Parkland Family Medicine Residency Clinic. Methods: Electronic medical records of 250 randomly selected patients seen at the Parkland Family Medicine Residency Clinic between July 2013 and July 2014 were reviewed using the 3 W’s question format, a modified version of the National Patient Safety Foundation’s “Ask Me 3 Program,” designed to improve communication between patients and their health care providers. Results: The goal of the quality improvement study was to ensure that all patients receive a meaningful (relevant, accurate, and actionable) AVS after each clinic visit. Chart review indicated that 100% of patients received an AVS after each clinic visit. Of these patients, 51.2% were Spanish speaking, 47.2% English speaking, and 1.6% spoke neither English nor Spanish. Of the non-English-speaking patients, 84.8% received the AVS in their first language; the other 15.2% received the AVS in English. Sixteen percent (16%) of patients overall were considered to have received a nonmeaningful AVS. Reasons for the AVS not being meaningful included not containing any information on the patient’s presenting problem (39.2%), physician intervention (35%), or plan of care (18.4%). Conclusions: This study confirmed that although we demonstrate meaningful use of our EHR system, the content of the AVS needs to be improved on.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)65-68
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Primary Health Care
Electronic Health Records
Ambulatory Care
Biomedical Technology
Medicaid
Internship and Residency
Physicians
Medicine
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Patient Safety
Quality Improvement
Health Personnel
Motivation
Language
Communication
Health

Keywords

  • Electronic health records
  • Meaningful use
  • Primary health care
  • Quality improvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Family Practice

Cite this

Assessing the quality of the after-visit summary (AVS) in a primary-care clinic. / Mir, Tasaduq H; Osayande, Amimi S; Kone, Kimberly; Bridges, Kate; Day, Philip.

In: Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Vol. 32, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 65-68.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f1f1c900629b45be8f2b53e89bf3f101,
title = "Assessing the quality of the after-visit summary (AVS) in a primary-care clinic",
abstract = "Background and Objective: As part of Affordable Care Act, the Centers for Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend physicians provide patients with an After-Visit Summary (AVS) following a clinic visit. Information should be relevant and actionable with specific instructions regarding their visit and health. Until recently, this recommendation was included as part of meeting the standard for Stage 1 Meaningful Use for all physicians using electronic-health-record (EHR) technology. In 2016, CMS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to institute parts of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Merit-based Incentive Payment System, which continues to focus on quality, resource use, and use of certified EHR technology. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of the AVS for patients seen at the Parkland Family Medicine Residency Clinic. Methods: Electronic medical records of 250 randomly selected patients seen at the Parkland Family Medicine Residency Clinic between July 2013 and July 2014 were reviewed using the 3 W’s question format, a modified version of the National Patient Safety Foundation’s “Ask Me 3 Program,” designed to improve communication between patients and their health care providers. Results: The goal of the quality improvement study was to ensure that all patients receive a meaningful (relevant, accurate, and actionable) AVS after each clinic visit. Chart review indicated that 100{\%} of patients received an AVS after each clinic visit. Of these patients, 51.2{\%} were Spanish speaking, 47.2{\%} English speaking, and 1.6{\%} spoke neither English nor Spanish. Of the non-English-speaking patients, 84.8{\%} received the AVS in their first language; the other 15.2{\%} received the AVS in English. Sixteen percent (16{\%}) of patients overall were considered to have received a nonmeaningful AVS. Reasons for the AVS not being meaningful included not containing any information on the patient’s presenting problem (39.2{\%}), physician intervention (35{\%}), or plan of care (18.4{\%}). Conclusions: This study confirmed that although we demonstrate meaningful use of our EHR system, the content of the AVS needs to be improved on.",
keywords = "Electronic health records, Meaningful use, Primary health care, Quality improvement",
author = "Mir, {Tasaduq H} and Osayande, {Amimi S} and Kimberly Kone and Kate Bridges and Philip Day",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3122/jabfm.2019.01.180055",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "65--68",
journal = "Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine",
issn = "1557-2625",
publisher = "American Board of Family Medicine",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the quality of the after-visit summary (AVS) in a primary-care clinic

AU - Mir, Tasaduq H

AU - Osayande, Amimi S

AU - Kone, Kimberly

AU - Bridges, Kate

AU - Day, Philip

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background and Objective: As part of Affordable Care Act, the Centers for Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend physicians provide patients with an After-Visit Summary (AVS) following a clinic visit. Information should be relevant and actionable with specific instructions regarding their visit and health. Until recently, this recommendation was included as part of meeting the standard for Stage 1 Meaningful Use for all physicians using electronic-health-record (EHR) technology. In 2016, CMS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to institute parts of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Merit-based Incentive Payment System, which continues to focus on quality, resource use, and use of certified EHR technology. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of the AVS for patients seen at the Parkland Family Medicine Residency Clinic. Methods: Electronic medical records of 250 randomly selected patients seen at the Parkland Family Medicine Residency Clinic between July 2013 and July 2014 were reviewed using the 3 W’s question format, a modified version of the National Patient Safety Foundation’s “Ask Me 3 Program,” designed to improve communication between patients and their health care providers. Results: The goal of the quality improvement study was to ensure that all patients receive a meaningful (relevant, accurate, and actionable) AVS after each clinic visit. Chart review indicated that 100% of patients received an AVS after each clinic visit. Of these patients, 51.2% were Spanish speaking, 47.2% English speaking, and 1.6% spoke neither English nor Spanish. Of the non-English-speaking patients, 84.8% received the AVS in their first language; the other 15.2% received the AVS in English. Sixteen percent (16%) of patients overall were considered to have received a nonmeaningful AVS. Reasons for the AVS not being meaningful included not containing any information on the patient’s presenting problem (39.2%), physician intervention (35%), or plan of care (18.4%). Conclusions: This study confirmed that although we demonstrate meaningful use of our EHR system, the content of the AVS needs to be improved on.

AB - Background and Objective: As part of Affordable Care Act, the Centers for Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend physicians provide patients with an After-Visit Summary (AVS) following a clinic visit. Information should be relevant and actionable with specific instructions regarding their visit and health. Until recently, this recommendation was included as part of meeting the standard for Stage 1 Meaningful Use for all physicians using electronic-health-record (EHR) technology. In 2016, CMS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to institute parts of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Merit-based Incentive Payment System, which continues to focus on quality, resource use, and use of certified EHR technology. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of the AVS for patients seen at the Parkland Family Medicine Residency Clinic. Methods: Electronic medical records of 250 randomly selected patients seen at the Parkland Family Medicine Residency Clinic between July 2013 and July 2014 were reviewed using the 3 W’s question format, a modified version of the National Patient Safety Foundation’s “Ask Me 3 Program,” designed to improve communication between patients and their health care providers. Results: The goal of the quality improvement study was to ensure that all patients receive a meaningful (relevant, accurate, and actionable) AVS after each clinic visit. Chart review indicated that 100% of patients received an AVS after each clinic visit. Of these patients, 51.2% were Spanish speaking, 47.2% English speaking, and 1.6% spoke neither English nor Spanish. Of the non-English-speaking patients, 84.8% received the AVS in their first language; the other 15.2% received the AVS in English. Sixteen percent (16%) of patients overall were considered to have received a nonmeaningful AVS. Reasons for the AVS not being meaningful included not containing any information on the patient’s presenting problem (39.2%), physician intervention (35%), or plan of care (18.4%). Conclusions: This study confirmed that although we demonstrate meaningful use of our EHR system, the content of the AVS needs to be improved on.

KW - Electronic health records

KW - Meaningful use

KW - Primary health care

KW - Quality improvement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059499843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059499843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3122/jabfm.2019.01.180055

DO - 10.3122/jabfm.2019.01.180055

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 65

EP - 68

JO - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

JF - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

SN - 1557-2625

IS - 1

ER -