Abstract
Many academic medical centers (AMCs) rely on systems like the Vizient Quality and Accountability Scorecard to track quality metrics such as the observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratio. The O/E mortality ratio calculation relies on clinical documentation. Missed documentation of diagnoses and risk factors for mortality leads to an underestimated expected mortality, which negatively affects the O/E metric.We aimed to reduce our O/E mortality ratio from a median of 1.08 (± 0.10) to a median well below 0.90 within 12 months by improving the accuracy of clinical documentation.We used a continuous quality improvement process that began with creating a rule-based tool within a standardized documentation template. The tool was designed to pull pertinent discrete electronic health record data into clinician documentation. The tool only pulled in data that were present on admission, and it especially prioritized inclusion of frequently missed risk factors according to prior coding query data. We then formed a multidisciplinary mortality review committee where providers reviewed mortality cases, made suggestions for documentation clarification, and found potential diagnoses and risk factors that the patient had which were missing from the documentation. We then leveraged the committee's expertise and feedback to improve the rule-based clinical tool.Over the 21-month period following implementation, the median O/E mortality ratio decreased by 30%, from 1.08 (± 0.10) to 0.72 (± 0.13) and consistently remained below the prior levels. Importantly, the intervention also led to a reduction in the total number of coding queries sent to clinicians, indicating a lower administrative burden for clinicians and coders.Our interventions showed a clear improvement in the O/E mortality ratio at our AMC and in the expected mortality percentage compared with other similar institutions without significantly increasing burden on clinicians or coding specialists.