International Journal of Research Foundation of Hospital and Healthcare Administration

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Use of CRABEL Scores to improve Quality of Medical Records Documentation in Hospitals

Arif Raza

Citation Information : Raza A. Use of CRABEL Scores to improve Quality of Medical Records Documentation in Hospitals. Int J Res Foundation Hosp Healthc Adm 2016; 4 (1):5-10.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10035-1052

Published Online: 00-06-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

This study is based on an approach employed by a medical college hospital for improving the adequacy of documentation in their medical records. The hospital utilized CRABEL scoring tool to screen and score their medical records and then used this information as a feedback to their clinical departments for encouraging them to improve their record documentation.

Aim

The study aims to determine whether the approach of the hospital resulted in any significant change in adequacy of their medical record documentation.

Materials and methods

Baseline sample of 250 current medical records (stratified random) from four clinical departments were scored using CRABEL scoring method to determine baseline average score and number of files with high scores (score > 0.85). Feedbacks on scores were given to departments, along with the information on areas for improvement. Scoring and feedback were repeated every month for six consecutive months, with sample size of 230 to 271. Trends in average score and number of files with high scores were observed. Difference between average scores of baseline sample and sample at the end of 6 months was statistically tested. Number of files with high scores, in departments where approach was carried out was compared with number of files with high scores, in departments were approach was not carried out, to check statistically significant difference, if any

Results

The trend showed a continuous monthly improvement in both average scores and number of files with high scores. Improvement was found in files of all clinical departments with minor variations. The chi-square test and Student's t test showed a significant difference at p < 0.05 (p for chi square — 0.001 and for t-test — 0.04).

Conclusion

The hospital's approach was found to be successful in improving the adequacy of documentation in medical records.

Clinical significance

Medical record constitutes the most important record in a clinical setting. Completeness of medical record is essential for proper patient care, but is a challenge in most organization. The approach has proven successful in this study and can be replicated in other settings for improvement.

How to cite this article

Raza A. Use of CRABEL Scores to improve Quality of Medical Records Documentation in Hospitals. Int J Res Foundation Hosp Healthc Adm 2016;4(1):5-10.


PDF Share
  1. Guidelines for medical record and clinical documentation: WHO-SEARO coding workshop. The World Health Report. Geneva: WHO; 2007 Sep.
  2. Medical records. Practitioner 1992 May;236(1514):533-535.
  3. Patient safety and quality: an evidencebased handbook for nurses. Publication No.: 08-043. Rockville (MD): Agency for Health care Research and Quality (US); 2008 Apr.
  4. Common deficiencies identified during accreditation assessment surveys [Internet]. Delhi; 2010 [cited 2014 June 2]. Available from: http://Healthcare.financialexpress.com .
  5. Inadequacies of hospital medical records. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993 Jan;75(Suppl 1):7-9.
  6. Audit of the quality of medical records in a district general medicine unit. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1983 Jan 1;17(3):208-212.
  7. Notes: a suitable case for audit. Postgrad Med J 1993 Jul 1;69(813):578-580.
  8. International Health care documentation and common practices. 10th Annual National Conference on “Health Information, Medico Legal Management and Documentation”. Pune, India; 2010 Mar.
  9. Medical audit of case notes on a one to one basis. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1991 Oct;25(4):358-359.
  10. Factors influencing the quality of medical documentation when a paper-based medical records system is replaced with an electronic medical records system: an Iranian case study. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2008 Oct 1;24(04):445-451.
  11. Accuracy of electronically reported “meaningful use” clinical quality measures: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med 2013 Jan 15;158(2):77-83.
  12. Error rates in physician dictation: quality assurance and medical record production. Int J Health Care Quality Assur 2014 Mar 3;27(2): 99-110.
  13. The CRABEL score – a method for auditing medical records. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001 Jan;83(1):65.
  14. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines on tonsillectomy: a three cycle audit of clinical record keeping and adherence to national guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 2002 Jun 1;116(06):453-454.
  15. Spiralling audit sets guidelines and surgical standards: an audit of the completeness of operation notes. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1998;80(6):44
  16. Surgical case notes quality by CRABEL score in Dow University Hospital. J Postgrad Med Inst (Peshawar-Pakistan). 2012 Sep 24;26(4):412-417.
  17. The CRABEL score – setting standards in maxillofacial medical note-keeping. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004 Jun 30;42(3):200-202.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.