.....could just as easily be pulled out of the purpose statement of a CDI program. The three key impacts of the EHR included in this statement - improving the quality of healthcare, advancing research and education - are also drivers of any CDI program.
So, although I know I have asked this question before, it's important enough to repeat, "is your CDI program represented on your organization's EHR/Meaningful Use Committee?" If not, now is the time to change that. If nothing else, let's consider the statement, originally coined by IT pioneers, Garbage In, Garbage Out. You might have the most expensive IT system available, but if the documentation that is fed into that system is not of the highest quality, then your organization will not be represented appropriately. Before MU and nation-wide EHR implementation, inaccurate data was a concern for every hospital. Now, with all comparative clinical data available at the fingertips of almost any consumer, health plan, provider, and let's not forget CMS......that concern skyrockets for every provider. Or, at least you should be concerned.
The last thing that any healthcare system wants to do is rush to make bad data available to the masses. The CDI professional can help in this regard.....Keep in mind that the HIT Policy Committee is also charged with developing, "A nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and accurate exchange of [accurate] health information." Although I inserted the accurate the second time (the one in brackets), surely, it's understood that the information to be exchanged will be accurate. Who suffers is the information is not accurate? The provider, the system, and most importantly, the patient.