HIMA 350 1 page paper with cover page and reference page
KrisSyh90
HIMA350I001Win20_Assignments.pdf
2/4/2020 APUS CLE : HIMA350 I001 Win 20 : Assignments
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/429653/tool/1b895009-3ede-4263-974f-eac311376fad/student-submit/859929 1/7
HIMA350 I001 Win 20 Assignments
Assignments
Assignment List Assignment 1: Using Benchmarking for Performance Improvement
Assignment 1: Using Benchmarking for Performance Improvement
DUE: Feb 9, 2020 11:59 PM
Assignment Details
Open Date Feb 3, 2020 12:00 AM
Graded? No
Resubmissions Allowed? No
Attachments checked for originality? Yes
Assignment Instructions
Benchmarking is the process of improving performance by continuously identifying and adapting outstanding practices.
Successful benchmarking results in improvements to quality and productivity as well as positive financial outcomes. For
example, in a study conducted by the American Productivity and Quality Center in 1995, more than 30 organizations
reported an average $76 million first-year payback from their most successful benchmarking project.
In addition, benchmarking promotes a “learning culture,” which is key to continuous long-term quality improvement and
competitiveness. Successful benchmarking organizations are continually looking for new ideas. They adopt the most
useful new ideas and meet and beat the best performance they can find.
Organizations with little experience in benchmarking often discover the best performance benchmark but stop short of
discovering how the best performance was achieved. Additionally, they may start their benchmarking efforts by looking at
external benchmarks while overlooking successful internal benchmarks that already exist. Further, inexperienced
benchmarking organizations often fail to measure the project’s effects in terms of its costs and benefits.
Successful Benchmarking
The prospect of benchmarking can be overwhelming. It is important, therefore, to tackle benchmarking one step at a time.
Benchmarking departments can add millions to a company’s bottom line when each becomes the best in just one
category.
In order to benchmark successfully:
1. Select a process to benchmark. Know specifically what your department’s problems are and clearly define what you
intend to study and accomplish. Choose relevant measurements.
2. Study performance-boosting best practices. Talk to colleagues inside your organization. Another department
within your own facility may be using a process that your department can adapt. Next, talk to colleagues outside
your organization. Participate in AHIMA’s Communities of Practice and appropriate listservs. Conduct a literature
search and attend educational programs to learn about best practices. Do not confine your search to your own
2/4/2020 APUS CLE : HIMA350 I001 Win 20 : Assignments
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/429653/tool/1b895009-3ede-4263-974f-eac311376fad/student-submit/859929 2/7
industry—there may be comparable processes in an entirely different industry from which you can learn. Develop a
questionnaire to guide telephone interviews and on-site visits.
3. Judge the appropriateness and adapt best practices. Consider benchmarking with organizations that are roughly
the same size as your own, because their best practices will be more likely to work in your organization. At times, it
makes sense to benchmark with companies that are less than the best but whose performance is better than your
own organization’s. The very best organizations may be overwhelmed by requests for information or site visits and
unable to provide you with the assistance you need.
4. Plan and implement best practices. Discuss your findings with your staff. Decide which practices can be adapted to
your organization. With staff support, move forward, making the necessary proposals and budget requests,
developing policies and procedures, conducting required training, and implementing new technologies.
5. Measure results and do a payback analysis. Assess the progress your organization has made by comparing baseline
data with current performance. Document the costs incurred and the benefits that have resulted. Monitor quality to
make sure improvements in performance are maintained. Periodically raise the bar or change the process for
continuous improvement.
Information Sources
There are numerous sources of benchmarking information. They include:
AHIMA: The Association periodically publishes surveys and best practices in the Journal. The Communities of
Practice are available for identifying organizations with which to benchmark. Additionally, national conventions and
audio seminars provide access to educational programs and exhibits in which best practices are showcased.
Other associations: Associations such as the American Hospital Association (AHA) and Medical Group
Management Association (MGMA) often provide member organizations with staffing and other information
obtained from its membership. Some of this information may be routinely forwarded to your organization’s
administration by these associations and often resides with the chief financial officer. Some associations also
conduct surveys on particular topics on request. These organizations may also publish findings in their periodicals
and on their Web sites.
State, federal government, and accreditation organizations: Depending on the type of benchmark data sought,
one might look to state or federal government or accreditation organizations. These organizations often publish
reports in their publications or on their Web sites.
Trade journals: There are numerous trade journals that publish surveys and showcase best practices.
Corporate information: It is important not to overlook internal benchmark sources. Potential benchmarking
partners can be identified at performance improvement or management meetings, in conversations with other
managers, and by evaluating performance figures from similar departments in affiliated organizations.
Potential benchmarking partners: An extremely valuable tool in benchmarking is the interview or site visit. The
information acquired from best practices can be priceless.
American Productivity and Quality Center: This organization has posted numerous benchmarking white papers and
a benchmarking code of conduct on its Web site (www.apqc.org).
The Benchmarking Exchange: For a fee, this organization provides access to benchmarking surveys and the ability
to request benchmark metrics from other organizations. Visit www.benchnet.com.
Surveys of Average Performance
HIM professional organizations are occasionally asked how their organization’s performance compares with that of other
organizations. This is not benchmarking in the true sense, but rather a comparison between one’s own performance and
the average performance of other organizations.
2/4/2020 APUS CLE : HIMA350 I001 Win 20 : Assignments
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/429653/tool/1b895009-3ede-4263-974f-eac311376fad/student-submit/859929 3/7
While there is little scientific data about performance, the following information may be helpful in deciding how your
organization can make such comparisons.
Staffing
AHA, MGMA, and other associations often provide staffing benchmarks to chief financial officers. Similar information can
also be obtained by calling the libraries of these associations.
Staffing levels are occasionally published in trade journals. Regardless of their source, these statistics are often
problematic. They may not adequately define what was supposed to have been measured, indicate whether low numbers
of employees reflect outsourcing, nor address the variation in the levels of services provided.
Turnaround Times
Turnaround benchmarks periodically have been published in the Journal of AHIMA as well as other trade publications.
One of the more recent turnaround time surveys was published in the February 2000 issue of the Journal.1 This particular
survey was sent to 1,000 randomly selected AHIMA members identified as HIM directors in acute care facilities. The data
compiled were based on the 200 useable surveys returned. See “Sample Production Turnaround Times,” below, for a
summary of some of the turnaround time statistics.
sample production turnaround times
Turnaround Times (for individual charts)
Days
Low Mean Mean High Mean
Assembly 1.89 2.19 2.5
Analysis 2.26 3.5 5.74
Coding 3.78 5.5 6.51
Release of information 2.30 5.28 11.94
Productivity Benchmarks
The chart “Sample Productivity Benchmarks,” below, summarizes anecdotal productivity and turnaround time
benchmarks collected at AHIMA. The data come from articles in the Journal and other HIM periodicals, conversations on
HIM listservs, the Communities of Practice, and personal experience. The data are not scientific, but it is frequently
requested by members and may be helpful for your organization’s benchmarking plan. Although the figures in the chart
may provide a snapshot of how your organization compares with others, it is wiser to peform a more thorough analysis. It’s
important that organizations understand the sources of data, sample size, and indicator definitions.
2/4/2020 APUS CLE : HIMA350 I001 Win 20 : Assignments
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/429653/tool/1b895009-3ede-4263-974f-eac311376fad/student-submit/859929 4/7
sample productivity benchmarkssample productivity benchmarks
Productivity Benchmarks Per Hour
Function Low Average High
Admission processing 20 30 60
Assembly (charts per hour)
Inpatient
Observation/outpatient surgery/newborn/maternity
Other outpatient
5
8
14
20
20
60
120
Analysis (charts per hour)
Inpatient
Observation/outpatient surgery/newborn/maternity
Other outpatient
6
12
8
20
12
30
Assembly and analysis (charts per hour)
Inpatient
Observation/outpatient surgery/newborn/maternity
Other outpatient
10
14
18
30
43
Coding (charts per hour)
Inpatient
Observation/outpatient surgery/newborn/maternity
Other outpatient
2
5
10
4
9
30
5
12
36
Coding and abstracting (charts per hour)
Inpatient
Observation/outpatient surgery/newborn/maternity
Other outpatient
2
18
3
7
27
4
10
30
Filing loose reports (sheets per hour) 30 188
Pulling/retrieving records (charts per hour) 30 45
Release of information (charts per hour) 3 6
2/4/2020 APUS CLE : HIMA350 I001 Win 20 : Assignments
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/429653/tool/1b895009-3ede-4263-974f-eac311376fad/student-submit/859929 5/7
sample productivity benchmarks
Transcription (per hour)
Minutes of dictation
65 character lines
10
125
13
175
17
275
Benchmarking in practice
An HIM director at a large physician clinic has 21 transcriptionists who average about 140 lines per hour using
conventional word processing software and cassette tapes. The transcription unit supports 80 physicians at a cost of 15
cents per line.
The HIM director contacts the Medical Group Management Association and, with its data, is able to determine that in
similar settings one transcriptionist generally supports four physicians. She knows transcription processes are not state of
the art in her organization and wonders to what extent departmental performance might be improved by applying best
practices.
First, she conducts a literature search of transcription best practices on the AHIMA and American Association for Medical
Transcription Web sites. Then she searches AHIMA’s Communities of Practice for best practice and transcription threads.
She also talks to her peers on the local HIM association board and posts a discussion thread on the Ambulatory Care
Community of Practice. She attends a national convention, visiting vendors and attending lectures on best practices and
transcription technology.
She identifies 10 transcription departments of similar size and scope and interviews and the HIM director or transcription
manager at each, using an interview form she developed. She finds one department that is producing an average of 275
lines per transcriptionist per hour at a cost of 12 cents per line. During the interview, she finds out that this organization:
has an incentive program
uses software in which abbreviations typed onto the keyboard produce phrases and entire paragraphs
uses templates that can be personalized for particular patients for routine procedures
uses digital dictation from which to transcribe
does not require transcriptionists to perform any clerical duties or cover for other HIM functions after hours
has several telecommuting transcriptionists
On the basis of this information, the HIM director talks to her staff and decides to pursue abbreviation software, templates,
and a digital dictation system. Once those technologies and processes are implemented, she intends to develop an
incentive program and explore allowing transcriptionists to work from home. She presents the idea to administration, they
accept the idea, and she obtains the necessary funding. As she implements each of these processes, the productivity of
the transcription unit continues to increase. She provides administration with monthly progress reports and an annual
cost-benefit analysis.
Instructions:
1. Assume you are the hospital HIM director.
2. Create a letter that is sent to administration including details about the incentive program allowing transcriptionists
to work from home. Be sure to include supporting details from the information provided above to back up
2/4/2020 APUS CLE : HIMA350 I001 Win 20 : Assignments
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/429653/tool/1b895009-3ede-4263-974f-eac311376fad/student-submit/859929 6/7
SourceSource
StylesStyles FormatFormat FontFont SizeSize
your decision to allow transcripitionists to work from home.
3. Your completed assignment should be at least 1 page in length, not including the cover sheet and reference page.
Note
1. Osborn, Carol. “Practices and Productivity in Acute Care Facilities.” Journal of AHIMA 72, no. 2 (2000): 61-66.
References
Dixon Lee, Claire. “Benchmarking Healthcare Facility Performance Using External Data Resources.” Presentation at the
AHIMA Clinical Data Management Institute on September 26, 2002, at AHIMA’s 74th National Convention in San
Francisco, CA.
Dunn, Rose. “Productivity Standards: A Survey of HIM Professionals, Part II.” Journal of AHIMA 67, no. 6 (1996): 61-63.
Dunn, Rose. “Tricks of the Trade: Losing Your Mind with Loose Sheets.” For the Record 7, no. 17 (1995): 24-25.
Dunn, Rose. “Tricks of the Trade: Performance Standards for Coding Professionals.” For the Record 5, no. 23 (1993): 4-6.
Michigan Medical Record Association. “Practice Forum: Productivity Standards for Coding.” March 1990. Opus
Communications. “Benchmarking Survey: Monitoring Transcription Productivity.” Medical Records Briefing 10, no. 1
(1995).
Prepared by
Gwen Hughes, RHIA
Acknowledgments
Jill Burrington-Brown, MS, RHIA
Harry Rhodes, MBA, RHIA
Article citation:
Hughes, Gwen. "Using Benchmarking for Performance Improvement (AHIMA Practice Brief)." Journal of AHIMA 74, no.2
(2003): 64A-D.
Submission
To submit your assignment, enter text in the Submission Text box below and/or attach one or more files and
then click Submit. Save your work frequently.
Submission Text
2/4/2020 APUS CLE : HIMA350 I001 Win 20 : Assignments
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/429653/tool/1b895009-3ede-4263-974f-eac311376fad/student-submit/859929 7/7
Originality of attachments will be verified by Turnitin. Both you and your instructor will receive the results.
Attachments
No attachments yet
Add Attachments
Powered by Sakai
Copyright 2003-2020 The Apereo Foundation. All rights reserved. Portions of Sakai are copyrighted by other parties
as described in the Acknowledgments screen.
Words: 0, Characters (with HTML): 0/1000000
Submit Preview Save and Exit Cancel
