Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
Wondering if anyone else is having issues with an efficient identification of a patient's authorized representative documented in the EMR to discuss specific patient care related issues? (This rep is not an emergency contact as noted in the CPS PM patient profile)
Situation: We have a hospital policy where a patient can identify and sign an authorization form (good for one year) for a care representative allowing the discussion and decision making of specific care related to the patient. This representative is not always the same as the emergency contact.
Observation: the paper form is completed but there is not necessarily an efficient identification method in the CPS PM or EMR to quickly identify this person when a call or inquiry is received.
Solution / Question: Looking for advice if anyone is doing the same or how this may be handled in your hospitals?
Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.
Posted : September 15, 2016 2:18 am
We actually use directives for this, add an entry with the representative name and if there are any restrictions, you could also specify a stop date one year out. It is a manual process though
Posted : September 15, 2016 2:28 am
Topic starter
Michael,
How do you handle the chart maintenance security? We limit Chart Maint to only the providers and selected IT / HIM administration as a result of scope of practice. Do you have a one and/or two patient care staff assigned with the security to handle directives? Our concern is cart blanche chart maint capabilities will open a bleed in patient chart documentation practices. (we have over 800 users and 50 providers)
Posted : September 15, 2016 2:42 am
We are a little more liberal with them, we allow RN's, LPN's and MA's to sign chart maintenance documents. You could also do the updates as part of a Clinical List Update document or as part of the actual office visit itself. We used to do it as a part of the office visit but for various reasons we switched to chart maintenance about a year ago.
Posted : September 15, 2016 2:49 am
Topic starter
Makes sense. With that thought process, maybe the best action is to do as you state: Create an encounter type for registration / clerical staff using MEL_ADD_DIRECTIVE to enter the information.
Thanks, Michael.
Posted : September 15, 2016 2:54 am
