Here are studies, reports and stories that caught our eye in the last month.
Auto technology and insurance claims: Technology and consumer expectations are among the issues driving the evolution of auto insurance as we know it, according to an article in Property Casualty 360. The article explores “seven key areas that are ripe for further discussion, research and analysis.”
Storefront crashes: “Storefront crashes,” which involve a vehicle running into a commercial, public or retail building, cost insurers millions of dollars a year, according to an article in Claims magazine. In fact, in 2015 and 2016, the Storefront Safety Council is aware of more than $100 million in claims paid. “The trend is increasing as more cases go to trial and plaintiffs find it easier to show that a location was poorly protected against a foreseeable and preventable risk,” says the article, which also details new safety standards and trends to watch.
Top liability loses: Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty’s Global Claims Review 2017 recently ranked the top modern corporate liability exposures. The report finds that defective product or work; collisions and crashes; and human error were the leading causes of liability losses.
Drowsy driving: At least 21 percent of fatal crashes involve exhausted drivers, according to an article in Claims Journal. But activities to keep drivers alert, including radio adjustments and opening a window, come with their own risks. The article explores the issues, signs of drowsy drivers and ways to ensure drivers get enough sleep before they hit the road.
More data needed: According to a report from the National Safety Council, 2016 may have been the deadliest year on the nation’s roads since 2007. Last year, 40,000 people may have died because of a motor vehicle crash. Another 4.6 million were seriously injured. But, the council’s report says that “little is known about key driver behavior factors in these crashes because critical data is under-reported.” The report makes recommendations for law enforcement and those in the traffic safety field.
Why what’s missing is sometimes the most important detail
There is no safe blood lead level in children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But, more than 500,000 U.S. children have elevated levels, which can cause lifelong developmental delays.
One of our clients, an insurance company, pulled in MKC Medical Management to review the alleged lead poisoning case of a toddler. The child was healthy as an infant, but he developed significant speech and other developmental delays. Doctors eventually diagnosed the child with pervasive developmental disorder (PDD), which is on the autism spectrum.
What we found, according to the medical records, was that the child had lived in a building with toxic levels of lead. Tests also revealed that he had elevated blood lead levels.
But, those findings don’t necessarily mean that lead poisoning was behind the child’s diagnosis and delays. In any case under review, correlation doesn’t always mean causation.
Here are the facts of the case:
Overview: The claimant is a three-year-old child who, the plaintiff attorney alleges, has developmental and behavioral issues because of lead exposure in the home. MKC’s legal nurse consultants worked on the defense team for the insurance carrier.
What the records say about the child’s lead levels
At one year of age, the child’s blood level was 5 mcg/dL, which is considered elevated. Five months later, it was up to 5.3 mcg/dL. Six months later, it was up to 6.9 mcg/dL. The blood lead level was later reported to have spiked to 16 mcg/dL before dropping to 11 mcg/dL, but no lab reports for these final two tests were submitted for review.
What the records say about the child’s home
When the child was age two, city officials sent a letter to the property owners of the building the child was living in to notify them that there were “toxic levels of lead in or on the dwelling.” A lead abatement plan was required. It’s unknown how long the child had lived in the home and whether he had lived anywhere else. After the abatement order was issued, the family was relocated.
Missing lab reports were just one of this case’s red flags. Here are some other warning signs:
- The child lived with five siblings, ages 2 to 12, but no test results were submitted to indicate that any of the other children had elevated levels of lead in their blood.
- According to an assessment with the family, there is a family history of genetic issues, sickle cell trait and seizure disorders, but the relationship to the individuals with these medical issues and more specific diagnoses were not identified. If the child has a genetic history for autism, for instance, then this could be the cause or at least contribute to his developmental delays – not lead poisoning. More information about the family’s genetic history is needed to understand the origin of the child’s issues.
- The child’s parents failed to follow through on several of the doctors’ orders, including timely follow up with appointments, medication recommendations and possible failure to monitor lead levels. The medical records aren’t clear, but if the parents missed appointments to check lead levels, that detail could be critical for the defense.
- When the child is diagnosed with autism at age 2, the pediatrician does not ask for a repeat lead level blood test to determine if lead poisoning is a contributing factor to the child’s developmental issues. Did the pediatrician not believe that lead was the cause of the child’s delays? Why didn’t doctors recommend the family relocate?
- Anytime the medical records are incomplete, it’s suspicious. In this case, both lab results and genetic testing were completed, but the results were not submitted for review. Is the information being withheld because it might provide documentation for the defense to argue that the elevated lead level wasn’t the cause of the delays?
- At age 3, the child was diagnosed with pervasive development disorder, part of the autism spectrum. The condition’s learning and developmental delays can be similar to lead poisoning. What’s more, the disorder occurs during infancy, but, like the claimant’s diagnosis, is typically is not identified until age 3. For the defense, this could be a critical point in case.
After reviewing the case records, we recommended the client seek expertise and obtain missing medical information to better analyze the case. Those recommendations included:
- Working with a toxicologist, who specializes in lead poisoning, to identify at what level a child typically becomes symptomatic for lead poisoning. The child also was exposed to secondhand smoke, another source of lead exposure. A toxicologist also could help determine if that could be one reason for the elevated lead level.
- Seeking advice from a genetic specialist with expertise in genetic issues, including the sickle cell trait and autism, and the developmental disabilities they can cause. Determining other factors that could contribute to the child’s elevated lead levels, including whether any other children in the home have high lead blood levels; whether the child comes into contact with an adult whose job or hobby involves exposure to lead; and does the family use products or natural remedies that could be high in lead.
- Obtaining all records of genetic testing, lab results and any other information not submitted for the initial review.
At the outset, the case might seem clear cut: “Toxic” levels of lead in the home and elevated blood lead levels in a child, who, over time, develops intellectual and behavioral delays.
But, with a family history of genetic issues, lack of concern about lead from doctors and missing documentation, it’s impossible to determine the exact cause of the child’s issues. The plaintiff’s attorney might argue that the issues are directly related to lead exposure, but until all the medical records are reviewed by experts, clear causation can remain elusive. It is also possible that a clear causative factor cannot be determined and that in this particular case the child’s issues are caused by more than one factor.
Lead poisoning, especially in children, has made headlines in recent years, for good reason. The condition, found in more than 500,000 U.S. children, can lead to lifelong delays, including damage to the brain and nervous system; slowed growth and development; learning and behavior problems; and hearing and speech issues.
The most recent blast of headlines began with the crisis in Flint, Mich. There, after the city started drawing drinking water from the Flint River in 2014, the number of children under six years with high levels of lead in their blood almost doubled. Those rates returned to normal levels after Flint went back to its original drinking water source – Detroit’s water system. Several officials face charges in the case.
But, those headlines have only continued as further research has uncovered high levels of lead poisoning among children across the country. One examination by Reuters, the news agency, discovered nearly 3,000 U.S. communities with high rates of lead poisoning among their youngest residents.
More claims, cases
This renewed concern means some of our clients are seeing more claims related to lead poisoning, a condition the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls the “most preventable environmental disease among young children.”
But, to truly understand the medical records and history in those case files and get to the bottom of the cause, you’ll need to explore more than just the patient’s health information.
Everything from whether the child ever lived outside the country to what products their family uses to the child’s own genetic history are critical for a fully informed review of a lead poisoning case or claim.
Aware for decades
The public and officials have been aware of the dangers of lead for decades. In the 1950s, the first cities started passing laws about lead-based paint. The federal government didn’t take action until the 1970s.
In 1978, legislators banned the residential use of lead-based paint. When coupled with the phase down of the use of lead in gasoline, researchers documented a big drop in the average blood lead levels in the United States.
These days, the most common sources of lead aren’t from house paint or gasoline, but regular exposure to things such as toys, nutritional supplements, water in lead pipes, residue from a parent’s occupation and dishware, among other items.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the annual cost of childhood lead exposure in the United States is $50 billion. Lead toxicity is blamed for the loss of 23 million IQ points among children and is attributed to 20 percent of cases of ADHD.
Today’s goal: Prevention
Today, the focus is on stopping lead exposure before it happens. According to the CDC, there is no safe blood lead level in children.
“Even low levels of lead in blood have been shown to affect IQ, ability to pay attention and academic achievement,” according to the federal agency. “And effects of lead exposure cannot be corrected.”
Federal agencies and states across the United States have enacted their own lead laws to reduce lead poisoning rates. Here are some basic facts to know about lead poisoning, how it’s diagnosed and who is at risk, according to the CDC:
- A simple blood test, which is covered by Medicaid and most private health insurance, can measure lead levels in a child. For those enrolled in Medicaid, all children are required to receive screening tests at age 12 months and 24 months. Any child between 24 and 72 months with no record of a previous test should receive one, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
- All children should be screened for lead poisoning, but those ages six months to six years, who live in or regularly visit “deteriorated old buildings,” are the highest priority group.
- Children with unexplained seizures, neurological symptoms, abdominal pain and other symptoms, which could indicate lead poisoning, should be tested. So should children with developmental delays, slow growth, hyperactivity, hearing loss, anemia and behavioral disorders.
- A lead level of 5 micrograms per deciliter in a child indicates a “blood lead level of concern,” according to the CDC, and requires medical management.
- Medical treatment is recommended when the level is greater than or equal to 45 micrograms per deciliter of lead in the blood.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends pediatricians assess lead exposure risks at well-child visits until a child is six. Tests, however, are recommended only if the assessment indicates there is risk that a child could have been exposed.
The academy’s lead exposure risk assessment seeks answers to the following questions:
- Does the child regularly visit or live in a house built before 1978 with peeling or chipped paint?
- Has the child or family lived outside the United States?
- Does the child have a sibling or family member being followed for lead poisoning?
- Does the child frequently put things in his mouth such as toys, jewelry or keys?
- Does the child eat nonfood items because of a disorder such as pica?
- Does the child frequently come into contact with an adult whose job or hobby involves exposure to lead?
- Does the child live near an active lead smelter, battery recycling plant or other industry likely to release lead? Or, does the child live near a heavily traveled road where soil and dust could possibly be contaminated with lead?
Full medical review required
While the results of a blood test for lead may be simple to read, for attorneys and insurance adjusters, lead poisoning cases aren’t always clear cut. Many factors – not just the old building where they attend daycare or regularly visit their grandmother – must be investigated.
If you’re looking over a lead poisoning claim, here is the medical information that’s essential to build any case:
- Complete medical records, including infant and child growth percentiles with height, weight and head circumference measurements; labs; and documentation of well-child check ups.
- All testing and lab results for the individual.
- A full medical history of family members, including their genetics, that could identify any underlying medical, developmental or cognitive issues that could account for or contribute to the allegations of lead poisoning.
- Research into the individual’s geographic area, especially the town and building in question, to uncover any other claims or possible environmental factors such as lead in the water.
More than medical records needed
Attorneys and adjusters also must look beyond the medical records. Here are other questions you should ask about the claimant:
- What are the parents’ occupations? Could a child be picking up lead from residue left on their parents’ clothes and shoes, tracked in from their workplaces? The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health lists nearly two dozen jobs that could lead to lead exposure.
- Does the family use Mexican folk remedies, which may contain lead, such as greta, azoque and azarcon? The CDC lists other folk medicines that may contain lead.
- Is drinking water contaminated with lead?
- How old is the claimant? Babies and toddlers are at the highest risk because they play on the floor, picking up contaminants on their hands and skin and putting anything in their mouth.
- Does the child chew on toys, which possibly contain lead paint? Since 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has recalled about 50 toys because of lead.
- Are foods stored in containers high in lead such as leaded crystal, pottery or pewter?
- Is the claimant exposed to household dust which contains lead from lead paint chips or contaminated soil brought in from the outside?
- How is the child doing in school? Are there behavioral and cognitive test results to review?
- Has a developmental behavioral pediatrician, toxicology specialist and genetic specialist been consulted? Some genetic disorders can cause cognitive and neurological disorders that, at first glance, may appear to be lead poisoning. These experts could provide critical information into the child’s well being.
- Do other family members, especially children, have elevated levels of lead? If not, genetics may be the culprit.
After all, genetics, for instance, not lead exposure could cause learning delays that might be attributed to lead poisoning. A favorite old toy, passed down from a grandparent, could be full of lead. Or, grandma’s remedy for colic could be behind the high lead levels.
In other words, a clear understanding of the clinical, genetic, cognitive and environmental presentation – and not just the medical history – is critical when analyzing an alleged case of lead poisoning. Attorneys and adjusters who don’t have the full picture could miss the details that might just make or break a case.
When Legal Nurse Consultants analyze medical records, we had better be able to compare and contrast subjective and objective documentation. In other words, we earn our keep by determining what constitutes a subjective complaint versus an objective finding.
Sounds simple right?
Not so fast! While these terms are used all through medical documentation, they can be confusing. Here are just a few reasons why:
- Non-medical people often mix the terms
- Medical records themselves can be confusing
- Attorneys and claims representatives often don’t understand the condition or clinical picture from a medical perspective
- Information that falls under each of the objective or subjective categories are often misunderstood, misquoted or confused.
To make matters even worse, there are medical terms that actually can fall under BOTH categories.
A case in point
Here is an actual physical exam taken from one of our company’s case files:
Physical exam: Abrasion to left knee, right 5th finger, thumb and chin. Lips also noted to be swollen. Elevated BP. Swelling noted to right hand, limited range of motion, decreased strength, tenderness to touch. Glasgow coma score 15/15. Neurovascular intact.
So, is the physical exam findings objective or subjective? First, let’s review the definitions of subjective and objective.
- Definition: Information that is reported by the patient, BUT can’t be verified or perceived by the examiner. The examiner should document SUBJECTIVE COMPLAINTS. The term subjective findings (or subjective symptoms) is wrong.
- Examples: “Feeling hot,” “pain,” “numbness,” “tingling” or “nausea.”
- Definition: Measurable abnormality or finding that is perceived by the examiner. The examiner would document OBJECTIVE FINDINGS.
- Examples: Lab or diagnostic testing; fracture visible on xray; bruising; swelling;redness.
So let’s take another look at that physical exam. Here’s a map, pulling out the objective and subjective elements:
- Abrasion (objective) to left knee, right 5th finger, thumb and chin.
- Lips also noted to be swollen (objective) and painful (subjective).
- Elevated BP (objective).
- Swelling (objective) noted to right hand, limited range of movement (likely both), decreased strength (likely both), tenderness to touch (subjective).
- Glasgow coma score 15/15 (objective). Neurovascular intact (objective).
Depending on what side of the case they’re on, attorneys and adjusters typically focus on what seems to help their case.
But a good evaluation depends on a clear understanding and accurate interpretation of the objective AND subjective data. The entire clinical picture – along with associated diagnostics, radiological studies and lab tests all – should be considered.
And this is where it gets tricky.
You have to really understand your clinical information – all of it. It is at this point that legal nurse consultants often get called to help out on a file.
While a medical record may have all kinds of subjective complaints, the absence of objective data that could account for the complaints should raise a red flag – irrespective of what side of the case you are on.
Much of what LNCs do is analyze all the medical data fairly and report on it. People like me take that data and explain it clearly and concisely. This explanation often becomes a story that tells the reader what happened.
Harnessing technical know-how
Here are a few tips to help you deal with the subjective versus objective issue:
- Look closely at all the data with a balanced view. Are you being objective about the case or file – or subjective?
- Compare and contrast the information. Are there lots of subjective complaints with few objective findings? How does this honestly affect your case?
- Consider whether the findings change or shift in any way through the medical record.
- Determine whether the subjective complaints have been thoroughly evaluated by clinical and diagnostic studies.
- Try to follow the course of subjective AND objective data through an accurate timeline. Is it possible? Or is something missing?
Finally, take the time to learn what is really subjective versus a measurable and verifiable finding. Even if you don’t fully understand the clinical picture, a common sense approach to reviewing the data is always helpful.
The importance of isolating muscle groups – and case records
For years, I’ve been going to the gym. I’ve run through the same workout week in and week out. I thought I was doing a great job, honing in on specific muscle groups and staying fit.
So, when a personal trainer suggested I do those triceps exercises that I’ve always done with three-pound weights, not 10-pound ones, I was a little skeptical. Why? I’ll never work those muscles with just three pounds of weight, I thought.
And then I did it. After the third set of 20 reps, my triceps were screaming.
It turns out, I’d been doing it wrong all of the time. And, let’s just say, I’ve been taking my personal trainer’s advice ever since that day.
He knows the equipment. He’s read up on the latest research. And he knows the importance of isolating those muscle groups for the most efficient and effective workout.
What does this have to do with legal nurse consulting? A lot.
We know the equipment.
Our LNCs bring decades of experience as registered nurses. We know our way around complex medical records, including the digital kind, and complicated diagnoses.
We’re always on the lookout for red flags when evaluating, for instance, a motor vehicle accident injury. We know ways to avoid getting tripped up by the pages and pages of medical records that come with just about every case.
And, whether it’s lead poisoning or workplace back injury, we know the tough questions to ask – and what records are critical to figuring out exactly what happened.
We know the latest research.
Opioids should no longer be the go-to pain killer for certain injuries. ICUs may be overused. Let’s talk the biomechanics of minor automobile accidents.
As a lawyer or insurance adjuster, you are well versed in the constantly evolving rules and regulations of your industry. And we know medicine, an always developing field that brings about new revelations just about every day.
We know the importance of isolating the details.
The devil, as they say, is always in the details.
I’m getting a better workout because my personal trainer is teaching me how to isolate certain muscle groups. At work, we’re helping our clients “isolate” the details in every case.
To the layperson, they might seem like minutiae – tiny technicalities in a medical record that seem to have little to do with the case overall.
But, as experts in the field, we know that every little detail counts. In a lead poisoning case, for instance, what were the parents’ occupations? In a slip and fall, when exactly did the patient seek treatment?
If you can’t master the details – and get to the bottom of what is really important in a case – you’ll be missing critical elements to the case or claim that you’re investigating.
Working with an expert always brings about new revelations. It might happen at the gym. And it definitely will come when you work with one of our LNCs.
Questions? Contact us.
Reviewing dental claims is a regular part of our job at MKC Medical Management. But the work isn’t as clear cut as it might seem when you’re dealing with a cracked tooth or gum lacerations. They often take a lot of sleuthing.
Let’s look at one case we reviewed. A man was reportedly struck on the left side of the chest. The claimant reported that he fell and injured his left knee and chest. Buried in the same records, however, was a costly dental restoration plan.
Based on the facts, I wondered how the claimant could justify such a thing. So, I started with the emergency department records.
Checking the facts
I reviewed everything and cross referenced the alleged event facts and ALL of the objective data, including the lab tests and diagnostic results.
I looked at pieces of information tucked in the emergency room nurse’s triage notes, what the EMS documented, the treating physician’s exam and the discharge orders.
In other words, I looked at everything. I really focused on the subjective complaints and reported information In fact, I reviewed everything three times!
And, guess what?! NO oral trauma was documented. There was NO subjective complaint regarding oral, dental, teeth, gum pain or trauma. In fact, the claimant self-reported NO head trauma.
Furthermore, there was an entry documenting “no oral trauma.”
None of the hallmarks of oral trauma were there: No blood, no laceration, no missing or cracked teeth. NO oral pain. Instead, the exam stated, “Oral mucosa, pink and moist.”
Wait, no oral trauma?
So, I am thinking, why did the carrier send this file?
I kept digging. Because nothing is really obvious, is it?
I discovered that the records reported that the claimant received chiropractic care about three days after the incident date. But there was no mention of facial or oral trauma in the chiropractic notes. Considering the account of the event and that the description of all of the other injuries was very detailed, it was odd.
Then, more review … this time the dental records.
The injured man was seen by the dentist the day of the alleged incident. More mystery, as there was no documented problems. I concluded that he must have been seen before the accident as well.
Next, I pulled out the dental billing statement. There was NO billed return visit until four weeks after the alleged accident.
I then went back to the handwritten dental documentation. The corresponding notes clearly documented NEW findings involving MULTIPLE teeth: A fractured bridge, damaged crown, cracked/loose teeth and a FRESH laceration around the gum with an associated a tooth fracture.
These findings were significant and a HUGE RED FLAG! A person with so much dental damage – and pain – would likely not wait four weeks to seek evaluation or treatment.
And, while some of this might be a mixed bag of acute and non-acute findings, those findings clearly did not fit the alleged mechanism of injury and the claimant’s report that he suffered no facial and head trauma at the time of the accident.
I recommended that BEFORE payment consideration be made, the carrier should request additional documentation that supported the initial mechanism of injury and lack of oral injury. I also recommended asking the treating dentist to explain the current findings in light of a four-week treatment gap.
We often review claims with dental injuries. These can be tricky. The information documented in a dental record is often presented very differently than a medical record.
There may not be the familiar “dictated” note. The daily visit notes are often handwritten abbreviations and acronyms known only to dentists and hygienists.
Sure, there are other components of the dental record, including medical and dental histories, diagnostics and X-rays, personal information and electronic records, among others. But this information is often not submitted with a liability claim.
Getting to the truth takes ingenuity, a willingness to dig and a practical understanding of trauma care.
Here are studies, reports and stories that caught our eye in the last month.
Workers’ comp safety net: Panelists and audience members at the recent Workers’ Compensation Research Institute conference say the workers’ compensation industry must play a role in a broader safety net as “job security, employer-funded pensions and health insurance is weakened,” according to an article in the Insurance Journal. Participants also want professionals and policymakers to clearly define what responsibilities they have for those falling outside the workers’ compensation system, including aging workers with chronic illnesses, undocumented immigrant laborers and those working in the gig economy, the article says.
Blood pressure and dementia: Middle-aged people who have a sudden drop in their blood pressure could be at risk of developing dementia and other cognitive decline when they get older, according to new research from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. An article in Medical News Today about the research says that “temporary, rapid drops” in blood pressure may cause “serious damage” because they “stop the necessary blood flow from reaching the brain.”
Impact of arthritis on healthcare costs: New research from the Medical University of South Carolina offers the “first time the relationship between arthritis or joint pain limitations and medical expenses has been examined in a large U.S. cohort,” according to an article in MedPage Today. Researchers found, according to the article, that “activity limitations may explain the difference in medical expenditures between patients with arthritis or joint pain and those who don’t.”
Curbing drug use at the ER: A simple conversation about cutting back on drug use during an emergency room visit could be the “basis for a long-lasting drop in a person’s use of illegal drugs or misuse of prescription medicines,” according to new research from the University of Michigan. According to a press release, the “findings, from a carefully designed randomized controlled trial involving 780 people at a Flint, Mich., ER who indicated recent drug use on a health survey, suggest that ER visits might serve as effective ‘teachable moments’ for drug use.”
Palliative care boosts quality of life: Patients who received palliative care during a bone marrow transplant report better quality of life, according research at Massachusetts General Hospital, but more study is required to determine the long-term outcomes and costs, reports the National Institutes of Health.
Study finds that truckers’ poor health could spike crash risk
Truckers with three or more medical conditions carry two to four times the risk of being in a crash when compared to healthier drivers, according to a new study from the University of Utah School of Medicine.
Researchers say the study indicates that truckers might not just be a danger to themselves – but to other drivers on the road, according to a press release about the study. The results were published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.
“What these data are telling us is that with decreasing health comes increased crash risk, including crashes that truck drivers could prevent,” says the study’s lead author Matthew Thiese, an assistant professor at the Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, in the press release.
Researchers looked at medical records from nearly 50,000 commercial truck drivers. Nearly 35 percent showed signs of at least one of many serious medical conditions such as heart disease and diabetes that are connected to poor driving. Then, researchers compared a driver’s medical and crash history.
According to the study, there were 29 injury-causing accidents among all truck drivers per 100 million miles traveled. For those with three or more illnesses, it spiked to 93 injury-causing accidents per 100 million miles traveled. Accidents increased regardless of a driver’s age or experience.
Current guidelines require that truckers stop driving only if they have a major health concern, not a variety of less serious illnesses. Researchers said they need to continue to study the issue to determine the best practices to keep both truck drivers and the public safe on the road.
“If we can better understand the interplay between driver health and crash risk, then we can better address safety concerns,” said the study’s senior author Dr. Kurt Hegmann, director of the Rocky Mountain Center, in the press release.
Here on the MKC Medical Management blog, we’ve said it before. When evaluating vehicle accident claims, it’s critical to consider pre-existing conditions that could have caused the crash and could impact the level of injuries – not only to the drivers, but to other people involved.
A thorough reading of emergency room and other health records is critical to suss out all of the relevant information and how that information impacts the claim whatever the payer source. That should always include pre-existing conditions.
Need help? Contact our experienced staff of legal nurse consultants.
Here are studies, reports and stories that caught our eye in the last month.
Changes for casualty insurance market: An article in Property Casualty 360 ticks off the 10 trends that are expected to shape the market this year. They include increased employer and workers’ compensation complexities, more underwriting scrutiny and a push for higher casualty rates, among others.
Patients skeptical of healthcare information technologies: Concerns about cybersecurity are among the reasons why more than half of consumers are leery of the benefits of healthcare information technologies such as patient portals and electronic health records, according to an article in FierceHealthcare. What’s more, 70 percent of Americans don’t trust health technology, up from only 10 percent three years ago.
Sepsis readmissions: Sepsis is a leading cause of unplanned hospital readmissions. And, once there, patients’ hospital stays are longer and more expensive when compared to those with heart failure, pneumonia and other illnesses, according to a study in JAMA. Researchers make recommendations for ways to reduce readmissions and cut costs.
Technology helping with diagnosis: An article in MIT Technology Review explores the new technologies, including smartphones and machine learning, that uncover vocal patterns that could help doctors diagnose everything from post-traumatic stress disorder to heart disease.
Opioid alternatives: As healthcare professionals and entrepreneurs look to curb the use and abuse of opioids, new technologies on the market seek to offer alternatives to opioids for chronic pain. An article on CNBC.com covers this growing class of FDA-approved devices.
For more great information and topics, check out our blog on MKC Medical Management.
How technology is helping doctors spend more time with patients, less time with paperwork
The next time you’re at the doctor’s office, it might not be just you and your doctor involved in the conversation.
A medical scribe also could be listening in thanks to new technology that uses Google Glass, the headgear that looks like a pair of glasses, but is connected to the Internet.
It’s touted as a timesaver for doctors, who spend as much as 35 percent of their day on recordkeeping. Proponents also say it’s a better way for doctors to build relationships with their patients because they can look them in the eye instead of down at computer screens or a clipboard to check and update records.
With the software, made by Augmedix, doctors put on a pair of Google Glasses, which have a camera and microphone built in, and are able to interact with their patient’s medical records with simply their voice. During the visit, a medical scribe watches and listens in.
The scribe, trained to work with a particular practice, can answer the doctor’s questions about a patient’s history, for instance, and, once the exam is over, help ensure the records for that day’s visit are complete.
For doctors, the technology allows for hands-free recordkeeping as they direct medical record updates with simply their voice. Doctors must approve any records before it becomes part of a patient’s permanent record.
The service also complies with HIPAA requirements. According to an article for Stanford University’s medical school, patients sign off that they want to use the service before they meet with the doctor. Nearly 100 percent of patients agree, said Pelu Tran, the company co-founder who was a Stanford medical student when he launched the company.
Scribes for Augmedix work from offices in San Francisco and India in sealed-off rooms and must leave pens, paper, smartphones and other belongings outside, according to an article in the Washington Post.
The company is growing by leaps and bounds with big customers – Dignity Health, Sutter Health, and TriHealth, among them – and big investments. So far, funding has totaled more than $60 million, according to an article in Medscape.
At the Consumer Technology Association 2017 Digital Health Summit in January, Augmedix cofounder and CEO Ian Shakil called Google Glass the “stethoscope of this century,” according to the Medscape article.
And it’s expected to help fuel the medical scribe industry. By 2020, a report in JAMA estimates that doctors will employ about 100,000 scribes or one scribe for about every nine doctors. There were about 20,000 medical scribes in 2014.
As the technology and acceptance grows, it could be a boon for patients and doctors. Patients get more focused, one-on-one time with their doctors.
But, for doctors, overwhelmed with recordkeeping requirements, it could make an even bigger difference. A recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that for every one hour spent with patients, doctors spend another three to four hours on computer and clerical work, leading to burnout.
With technology like Google Glass and Augmedix, they could be spending more time with their patients – and much less time on the paperwork.