Indiana Institute of Technology Benchmarking Productivity Case Study
Question Description
I’m stuck on a Health & Medical question and need an explanation.
Benchmarking Productivity
As the HIM Director at Indiana Tech Hospital, you oversee the Medical Coding Unit.The Coding Unit consists of 10 coders. There are 4 Inpatient Coders, 2 Outpatient, 2 ER coders, and 2 Ancillary Coders. There are six full-time (40 hr/wk) coders, and four part time (24 hr/wk) coders as noted below. The Discharge Not Final Billed Report has demonstrated and increase in DNFB dollars, which is directly related to an increase in the back-log of coding that has been observed over the past several months. As the Director, you first step is to review the current productivity of your Coding team to determine if your need to adjust the productivity standards or if you need to address personnel needs.Please use the data provided to answer the questions below:
Current Productivity Benchmarks (Per Day):
- Inpatient Charts – 65
- Outpatient Charts- 230
- ER Charts- 160
- Ancillary Charts- 285
Current Productivity:
ID
Coder Role
PT/FT
Daily
Hourly
11
Inpatient Coder
FT
18
21
Inpatient Coder
FT
21
31
Inpatient Coder
PT
11
41
Inpatient Coder
PT
9
51
Outpatient Coder
FT
126
61
Outpatient Coder
PT
48
71
ER Coder
FT
92
81
ER Coder
PT
87
91
Ancillary Coder
FT
137
00
Ancillary Coder
FT
145
Use the Data provided above to answer the following questions:
- Compute the hours productivity for each of the coders: (You can add the numbers to the “hourly” column above.
- Compute the productivity for each group class of coders ( Inpatient, Outpatient, ER, Ancillary):
- Inpatient:
- Outpatient:
- ER:
- Ancillary:
- Determine if the both the individual coders, and group of coders are meeting the current productivity benchmark targets.
- What conclusions can you draw from the study? Be detailed and thorough on this response, touching on all possible conclusions.
- Recommend a new productivity standard based on the information gathered above, in order to reduce the notes backlog.
- Do you currently have enough staff to handle the current workload if there is nobacklog? If not, what do you recommend?
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||