Abstract
Maintaining patient identities is a crucial responsibility of the federal and state governments involved in healthcare. Duplicate health record numbers cause various issues, which worsen when duplicates within the same organization are shared with other service providers and health information exchange systems. Rethinking how to stop these errors from happening in their new systems can be aided by establishing and adopting new policies.
Introduction
The Enterprise Master Patient Index is used to achieve accurate matching data to improve patient safety. This is done to establish and validate the accurate identification of patients. Duplication of patient data is a significant issue that makes it challenging to coordinate treatment, communicate accurate and complete patient information, and enhance the quality of care (Wiedermann, 2014). This can result in patient deaths from medical mistakes. This policy will be implemented to address and counter some of these difficulties.
Definition
This policy is created by considering several factors. These components include the policy’s name and a description of the patient’s health. A specific number that is utilized to separate patient files from other files is referred to as the version number. The day the patient received the EMPI policy was the policy’s effective date, which is helpful for monitoring development. The data held in the MP were gathered and saved as of the date of ratification.
Policy
The cornerstone of the policy is laid forth in the introduction and justification. Also, it describes the goals the business has during the allotted period. The definition and general recommendations pertain to the rules and tactics to be used to guarantee that the EMPI data gathered in compliance with their policy is done so in a methodical and structured way (Gliklich et al., 2014). The gathering of reliable data is made possible by adherence to the EMPI policy, which keeps health services.
General Guidelines
There are various general guidelines for this policy. The most crucial of these is that patients can decide on an appointment time and date, and they should all be seen in order of clinical importance. Also, no patient awaiting an outpatient visit may be suspended or will not be. The policy thoroughly informs patients receiving therapy and individuals awaiting treatment on how they will handle problems. If someone cannot make it on time for their appointment, they will have enough time to reschedule it.
Identification of Patient Records
Several techniques are utilized to distinguish patients when an organization comes across people with comparable demographic data. For example, they use distinctive characteristics, including last name, eye color, birth date, and genetic makeup (Persons et al., 2020). As a result, it is easy to divide patients into groups based on this factor.
A standard basis for patients with pertinent lesions is essential to guarantee that organs acquire an appropriate degree of specificity and sensitivity (Gliklich et al., 2014). For various customers, personal IDs exclusive to each patient are employed. Patients can, therefore, successfully adhere to their hygiene requirements. A person’s registration number, particular to each patient, is a personal identity (Mason et al., 2020). Phone numbers, addresses, and social security numbers are a few examples.
Conclusion
This policy attempts to guarantee the security of every patient because the records are private and freely accessible, eliminating any possibility of error or duplication. This policy covers case management in all places where the institution operates, including outreach, and it specifies how the facility will handle patients while they are awaiting treatment in hospitalized, non-hospitalized, or diagnostic paths. It will help to overcome existing challenges and develop EMPI systems in healthcare.
References
Gliklich, R. E., Dreyer, N. A., & Leavy, M. B. (Eds.). (2014). Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: A user’s guide. Hodder Education.
Mason, J., Dave, R., Chatterjee, P., Graham-Allen, I., Esterline, A., & Roy, K. (2020). An investigation of biometric authentication in the healthcare environment. Array, 8(1), 100042. Web.
Persons, K. R., Nagels, J., Carr, C., Mendelson, D. S., Primo, H. R., Fischer, B., & Doyle, M. (2020). Interoperability and considerations for standards-based exchange of medical images: HIMSS-SIIM collaborative white paper. Journal of Digital Imaging, 33(1), 6–16. Web.
Wiedermann, L. A. (2014). Will the real John Smith please stand up? Journal American Health Information Management Association. 89(1), 52-53.