Title: Audit trail in an application


I know my company's PMS already has these audit trails in place with everything all tied together: billing, scheduling, procedure entry, and collections etc.  In order to be successful in e-filing claims, I cannot imagine any system not having these mechanisms.  Denial rates would be so high.  Take into account the future (may be over ten year's away) move towards the "ICD10" already used in parts of Europe.  I think the code jumps up to 9-10 digits to accommodate specificity so detailed as to negate the practice of having to attach OP notes to the insurance claims. I know that we are not the only PMS that is designed this way.
-----Original Message-----
From: mdgarrett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 8:57 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Audit trail in an application



In the Snip white paper on Audit Trails it basically states that the following should be captured:  Who (login ID) did What

(read-only, modify, delete, add, etc) to what data (identify member and data about that member that was
acted upon), and When (date/timestamp).  My question is how detailed should the "what data" be?  Is it good enough to know that I added a diagnosis to patient A?  Or do I need to know that I added diagnosis 270.01 to patient A?  My concern with this detailed approach is what happens when a user creates claims.  Do we really need 1000 audit rows when a user produces a 1000 claims in a billing run?



**********************************************************************
To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.

**********************************************************************
To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.

Reply via email to