Table 4.
Open in new tab

Comparison of Documentation Quality at Index Visit in Missed and Non-missed Groups

DescriptionOverall (n = 217)Missed group (n = 124)Non-missed group (n = 93)P value
Up to date: The note contains the most recent test results and recommendations.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately85 (39.2%)62 (50.0%)23 (24.7%)<.001
 Very, extremely132 (60.8%)62 (50.0%)70 (75.3%)
Accurate: The note is true. It is free of incorrect information.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately94 (43.3%)73 (58.9%)21 (22.6%)<.001
 Very, extremely123 (56.7%)51 (41.1%)72 (77.4%)
Thorough: The note is complete and documents all of the issues of importance to the patient.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately178 (82.0%)112 (90.3%)66 (71.0%)<.001
 Very, extremely39 (18.0%)12 (9.7%)27 (29.0%)
Useful: The note is extremely relevant, providing valuable information and/or analysis.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately101 (46.5%)74 (59.7%)27 (29.0%)<.001
 Very, extremely116 (53.5%)50 (40.3%)66 (71.0%)
Organized: The note is well-formed and structured in a way that helps the reader understand the patient’s clinical course.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately92 (42.4%)65 (52.4%)27 (29.0%).001
 Very, extremely125 (57.6%)59 (47.6%)66 (71.0%)
Comprehensible: The note is clear, without ambiguity or sections that are difficult to understand.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately82 (37.8%)62 (50.0%)20 (21.5%)<.001
 Very, extremely135 (62.2%)62 (50.0%)73 (78.5%)
Succinct: The note is brief, to the point, and without redundancy.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately77 (35.5%)59 (47.6%)18 (19.4%)<.001
 Very, extremely140 (64.5%)65 (52.4%)75 (80.6%)
Synthesized: The note reflects the author’s understanding of the patient’s status and ability to develop a plan of care.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately82 (37.8%)63 (50.8%)19 (20.4%)<.001
 Very, extremely135 (62.2%)61 (49.2%)74 (79.6%)
Internally consistent: No part of the note ignores or contradicts any other part.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately78 (35.9%)58 (46.8%)20 (21.5%)<.001
 Very, extremely139 (64.1%)66 (53.2%)73 (78.5%)
Overall documentation quality*
 Fair, poor, very poor109 (50.2%)83 (66.9%)26 (28.0%)<.001
 Excellent, good108 (49.8%)41 (33.1%)67 (72.0%)
DescriptionOverall (n = 217)Missed group (n = 124)Non-missed group (n = 93)P value
Up to date: The note contains the most recent test results and recommendations.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately85 (39.2%)62 (50.0%)23 (24.7%)<.001
 Very, extremely132 (60.8%)62 (50.0%)70 (75.3%)
Accurate: The note is true. It is free of incorrect information.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately94 (43.3%)73 (58.9%)21 (22.6%)<.001
 Very, extremely123 (56.7%)51 (41.1%)72 (77.4%)
Thorough: The note is complete and documents all of the issues of importance to the patient.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately178 (82.0%)112 (90.3%)66 (71.0%)<.001
 Very, extremely39 (18.0%)12 (9.7%)27 (29.0%)
Useful: The note is extremely relevant, providing valuable information and/or analysis.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately101 (46.5%)74 (59.7%)27 (29.0%)<.001
 Very, extremely116 (53.5%)50 (40.3%)66 (71.0%)
Organized: The note is well-formed and structured in a way that helps the reader understand the patient’s clinical course.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately92 (42.4%)65 (52.4%)27 (29.0%).001
 Very, extremely125 (57.6%)59 (47.6%)66 (71.0%)
Comprehensible: The note is clear, without ambiguity or sections that are difficult to understand.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately82 (37.8%)62 (50.0%)20 (21.5%)<.001
 Very, extremely135 (62.2%)62 (50.0%)73 (78.5%)
Succinct: The note is brief, to the point, and without redundancy.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately77 (35.5%)59 (47.6%)18 (19.4%)<.001
 Very, extremely140 (64.5%)65 (52.4%)75 (80.6%)
Synthesized: The note reflects the author’s understanding of the patient’s status and ability to develop a plan of care.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately82 (37.8%)63 (50.8%)19 (20.4%)<.001
 Very, extremely135 (62.2%)61 (49.2%)74 (79.6%)
Internally consistent: No part of the note ignores or contradicts any other part.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately78 (35.9%)58 (46.8%)20 (21.5%)<.001
 Very, extremely139 (64.1%)66 (53.2%)73 (78.5%)
Overall documentation quality*
 Fair, poor, very poor109 (50.2%)83 (66.9%)26 (28.0%)<.001
 Excellent, good108 (49.8%)41 (33.1%)67 (72.0%)
Table 4.
Open in new tab

Comparison of Documentation Quality at Index Visit in Missed and Non-missed Groups

DescriptionOverall (n = 217)Missed group (n = 124)Non-missed group (n = 93)P value
Up to date: The note contains the most recent test results and recommendations.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately85 (39.2%)62 (50.0%)23 (24.7%)<.001
 Very, extremely132 (60.8%)62 (50.0%)70 (75.3%)
Accurate: The note is true. It is free of incorrect information.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately94 (43.3%)73 (58.9%)21 (22.6%)<.001
 Very, extremely123 (56.7%)51 (41.1%)72 (77.4%)
Thorough: The note is complete and documents all of the issues of importance to the patient.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately178 (82.0%)112 (90.3%)66 (71.0%)<.001
 Very, extremely39 (18.0%)12 (9.7%)27 (29.0%)
Useful: The note is extremely relevant, providing valuable information and/or analysis.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately101 (46.5%)74 (59.7%)27 (29.0%)<.001
 Very, extremely116 (53.5%)50 (40.3%)66 (71.0%)
Organized: The note is well-formed and structured in a way that helps the reader understand the patient’s clinical course.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately92 (42.4%)65 (52.4%)27 (29.0%).001
 Very, extremely125 (57.6%)59 (47.6%)66 (71.0%)
Comprehensible: The note is clear, without ambiguity or sections that are difficult to understand.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately82 (37.8%)62 (50.0%)20 (21.5%)<.001
 Very, extremely135 (62.2%)62 (50.0%)73 (78.5%)
Succinct: The note is brief, to the point, and without redundancy.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately77 (35.5%)59 (47.6%)18 (19.4%)<.001
 Very, extremely140 (64.5%)65 (52.4%)75 (80.6%)
Synthesized: The note reflects the author’s understanding of the patient’s status and ability to develop a plan of care.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately82 (37.8%)63 (50.8%)19 (20.4%)<.001
 Very, extremely135 (62.2%)61 (49.2%)74 (79.6%)
Internally consistent: No part of the note ignores or contradicts any other part.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately78 (35.9%)58 (46.8%)20 (21.5%)<.001
 Very, extremely139 (64.1%)66 (53.2%)73 (78.5%)
Overall documentation quality*
 Fair, poor, very poor109 (50.2%)83 (66.9%)26 (28.0%)<.001
 Excellent, good108 (49.8%)41 (33.1%)67 (72.0%)
DescriptionOverall (n = 217)Missed group (n = 124)Non-missed group (n = 93)P value
Up to date: The note contains the most recent test results and recommendations.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately85 (39.2%)62 (50.0%)23 (24.7%)<.001
 Very, extremely132 (60.8%)62 (50.0%)70 (75.3%)
Accurate: The note is true. It is free of incorrect information.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately94 (43.3%)73 (58.9%)21 (22.6%)<.001
 Very, extremely123 (56.7%)51 (41.1%)72 (77.4%)
Thorough: The note is complete and documents all of the issues of importance to the patient.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately178 (82.0%)112 (90.3%)66 (71.0%)<.001
 Very, extremely39 (18.0%)12 (9.7%)27 (29.0%)
Useful: The note is extremely relevant, providing valuable information and/or analysis.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately101 (46.5%)74 (59.7%)27 (29.0%)<.001
 Very, extremely116 (53.5%)50 (40.3%)66 (71.0%)
Organized: The note is well-formed and structured in a way that helps the reader understand the patient’s clinical course.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately92 (42.4%)65 (52.4%)27 (29.0%).001
 Very, extremely125 (57.6%)59 (47.6%)66 (71.0%)
Comprehensible: The note is clear, without ambiguity or sections that are difficult to understand.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately82 (37.8%)62 (50.0%)20 (21.5%)<.001
 Very, extremely135 (62.2%)62 (50.0%)73 (78.5%)
Succinct: The note is brief, to the point, and without redundancy.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately77 (35.5%)59 (47.6%)18 (19.4%)<.001
 Very, extremely140 (64.5%)65 (52.4%)75 (80.6%)
Synthesized: The note reflects the author’s understanding of the patient’s status and ability to develop a plan of care.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately82 (37.8%)63 (50.8%)19 (20.4%)<.001
 Very, extremely135 (62.2%)61 (49.2%)74 (79.6%)
Internally consistent: No part of the note ignores or contradicts any other part.
 Not at all, slightly, moderately78 (35.9%)58 (46.8%)20 (21.5%)<.001
 Very, extremely139 (64.1%)66 (53.2%)73 (78.5%)
Overall documentation quality*
 Fair, poor, very poor109 (50.2%)83 (66.9%)26 (28.0%)<.001
 Excellent, good108 (49.8%)41 (33.1%)67 (72.0%)
Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close