Feedback and Staffing. Unit 6 Assignment 2 Feedback and Staffing: Key Assessment for Learning Objective #6 Assignment Objectives: Monitor staff and productivity Provide staff feedback Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to evaluate staff and productivity standards and provide staff feedback. Assignment Description: As the coding manager, you have just conducted a productivity and accuracy audit of the five coders that report to you. Below are the results of the study Productivity Accuracy Rate Coder One 45 charts in 8 hours 75% Coder Two 24 charts in 8 hours 98% Coder Three 30 charts in 8 hours 98% Coder Four 50 charts in 8 hours 60 % Coder Five 10 charts in 8 hours 97% Your department currently receives on the average 300 charts per day. Research and locate AHIMA’s productivity benchmarking standards. Your facility compliance guidelines state that coders should maintain at least a 95% accuracy rate. Using the audit results, AHIMA’s benchmarking standard, and compliance guidelines, develop feedback for each of the coders. Your feedback to each coder should be positive and comprehensive. Feedback must address at least productivity, accuracy, and suggestions for improvement. During this process, the department director has asked you to evaluate if you have enough staff to maintain the workload and to make recommendations for a change in staffing if necessary. Develop a proposal for staffing change if necessary. Parameters: Please prepare a written description of the feedback you would give to each coder, and also make recommendations for any changes in staffing that you would propose. Your proposal for additional staffing does not have to be a separate paper, but can be added to the end of your feedback. Be sure to include a cover page showing your name and course title/number, and cite any references in proper APA style at the end. Minimum length: 2-3 pages.

Staffing and Feedback

The main urge for doing staffing and feedback is to make sure there is a realization of a comprehensive and credible feedback from the employees. The human resource manager is responsible for making sure the required targets are met within the required time. It is the work of a coding manager to evaluate and check on the productivity of all employees in a health facility. The productivity of the workers is highly valued by the organization they are working in and it calls for the responsibility of the organization management in controlling and making sure there are exhausting the potential of their employees without enslaving them (Dunn, 2016). A coding manager in any health facility should make sure the staff have been audited to account for their whereabouts at any given time. This will always make sure the facility is run credibly and thus the health of the patients will be well taken care of in good time and diligently.

American health information management association (AHIMA) is a movement created to make sure the employees are accountable for their time and there is less wastage of the minimum resources that is time. For a coding manager, there are some of the themes that drive the organization objectives. The coding manager should have in mind that it is not all about productivity but equality is of significant importance (Dunn, 2016). The other factor to put into consideration is that every facility has its ways of running their affairs and there are few or no similarities from one hospital to another. The procedures used to record codes for outpatients is very different from the codes done on other fields in any facility.

It is in the knowledge of many that following the set standards of a specific organization will lead to correct, accurate, comprehensible and timely records by all benefactors. Having an access to the present ICD-9-CM and the most recent electronic encoder (Dunn, 2016). Having an annual review of the internal rules and techniques. Finding the root causes of the diminishing correctness of the tallies and lastly synthesizing the coders regularly.

Some factors lead to undesirable outcomes from the records are; have an ambiguous analysis, doing the analysis shallowly and incompletely, having conflicting records and illegible documentation, a hurry to processing the productivity values due to time constraints and final billing expectation, having an examined reorganized informative procedure that sums up to having a lower spectrum contrary to the desired value, having a review image quality on already in use systems and finally conducting noncoding tasks such as examining the wellbeing records for deficiencies (McLeod et al. 2015).

There are two tools that can be used in the process of benchmarking; record-over-record approach and code-over-code approach. The approaches are beneficial in their own ways and can be adapted to suit specific facilities. The advantage of using record-over-record tool is that there is a quicker arrival to the code review process compared to the other tool, the advantage is that there is specificity in the review process that trickles down to the code level and also identify trends that lead to improvement such as education (McLeod et al. 2015). There are disadvantages to the two tools; there is no specificity in determining where the error is occurring at and if there is the need for education. Whereas the code over code tool consumes a lot of time and thus causes delay.

For the first coder, it is with respect to the fact that he or she needed to carry out the research without putting into consideration all the necessary factors for auditing. Assumptions may be the cause of the adverse and significant difference in the amount of data collected by the first coder. The second coder has done a commendable job having reviewed twenty-four charts for the same duration and was more accurate to acquire such higher productivity percentage compared to the third coder. Depending on the tools used, the difference comes in. The forth coder concentrated more on the quantity of work despite having a limited amount of time and the results are evident that the documentation was not thoroughly done. The fifth coder took all his time used the code-over-code tool and thus was able to obtain variable results.

References

Dunn, R. (2016). Dunn and Haimann’s Healthcare Management. Health Administration Press.

McLeod, B. D., Smith, M. M., Southam-Gerow, M. A., Weisz, J. R., & Kendall, P. C. (2015). Measuring treatment differentiation for implementation research: The Therapy Process Observational Coding System for Child Psychotherapy Revised Strategies Scale. Psychological assessment, 27(1), 314.