Mp17-03 What Have I Done?: Trends in CPT Logging, a Single-Institution Study

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research I (MP17)1 May 2024MP17-03 WHAT HAVE I DONE?: TRENDS IN CPT LOGGING, A SINGLE-INSTITUTION STUDY Aaron J. Huang, Jose Torres, Jonathan Aronov, Jacob Hartman-Kenzler, Connelly D. Miller, and Michael Ernst Aaron J. HuangAaron J. Huang , Jose TorresJose Torres , Jonathan AronovJonathan Aronov , Jacob Hartman-KenzlerJacob Hartman-Kenzler , Connelly D. MillerConnelly D. Miller , and Michael ErnstMichael Ernst View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008628.15460.84.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate coding is a crucial measure of a resident's operative experience via case logs. It has been shown in other surgical specialties that the residents' Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case logs may not accurately reflect their operative experience. This study aims to determine the accuracy of procedural coding by urology residents at a single institution. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of case logs from July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022 for all current residents in a single urology residency program. Cases were included if a medical record or case number could be correlated with the billing information submitted by an attending physician. Cases were categorized per ACGME Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) types: general, endourology, reconstructive or female urology, oncology, or pediatrics. The billing CPT code was taken to be the "true" CPT code and compared to the code logged by the resident. Data collection and analyses were performed via SPSS v29.0.0.0. RESULTS: There were a total of 9,466 cases and 11,461 CPT codes logged by 15 residents during the study period. After application of inclusion criteria, 6484 cases were matched with attending billing information.PGY3 residents had the best match between resident logged and attending billed CPT code (71.2%), while PGY5 residents had the worst (35.7%) (Table 1). When separated by case category, endourology had the lowest CPT code match rate (44.2%) while oncology had the highest (78.3%).Using logistic regression, PGY3 (OR=2.1) and PGY4 (OR=1.3) residents were more likely to log the correct CPT code compared to PGY1s (p<0.001 and p=0.026). Analysis of CPT codes based on subspecialty category showed both pediatric (OR=0.72) and endourology (OR=0.38) were less likely to be logged correctly than general urology cases (p=0.018 and<0.001). Conversely, oncology cases were more likely to have correct CPT codes (OR=1.73, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: We found that residents progressively improved with logging CPT codes, peaking at PGY3. There were differences in CPT code usage between urologic subspecialties. The low overall accuracy of resident CPT code logs from one institution suggest further education may be required about logging them accurately and should be investigated further. These findings should also be considered when evaluating resident case logs upon graduation. Source of Funding: NA © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e291 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Aaron J. Huang More articles by this author Jose Torres More articles by this author Jonathan Aronov More articles by this author Jacob Hartman-Kenzler More articles by this author Connelly D. Miller More articles by this author Michael Ernst More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...