Physicians services provider manual

The State of South Carolina (South Carolina or State) Medicaid program recognizes professional medical services that are medically necessary, unless limitations are noted within the Other Service Limitations section of this manual. Information in this manual includes South Carolina Medicaid policies for general medical care, such as, office exams. These services are predominantly billed to Medicaid by Primary Care Physicians (PCPs), such as family physicians, internists, general practitioners, obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYN) and pediatricians. However, the guidelines are written for all providers rendering services to South Carolina citizens who are Medicaid beneficiaries. This manual lists requirements that must be met in order to qualify for payment from Medicaid

The impact of AI on radiographic image reporting – perspectives of the UK reporting radiographer population

Background: It is predicted that medical imaging services will be greatly impacted by AI in the future. Developments in computer vision have allowed AI to be used for assisted reporting. Studies have investigated radiologists' opinions of AI for image interpretation (Huisman et al., 2019 a/b) but there remains a paucity of information in reporting radiographers' opinions on this topic.Method: A survey was developed by AI expert radiographers and promoted via LinkedIn/Twitter and professional networks for radiographers from all specialities in the UK. A sub analysis was performed for reporting radiographers only.Results: 411 responses were gathered to the full survey (Rainey et al., 2021) with 86 responses from reporting radiographers included in the data analysis. 10.5% of respondents were using AI tools? as part of their reporting role. 59.3% and 57% would not be confident in explaining an AI decision to other healthcare practitioners and 'patients and carers' respectively. 57% felt that an affirmation from AI would increase confidence in their diagnosis. Only 3.5% would not seek second opinion following disagreement from AI. A moderate level of trust in AI was reported: mean score = 5.28 (0 = no trust; 10 = absolute trust). 'Overall performance/accuracy of the system', 'visual explanation (heatmap/ROI)', 'Indication of the confidence of the system in its diagnosis' were suggested as measures to increase trust.Conclusion: AI may impact reporting professionals' confidence in their diagnoses. Respondents are not confident in explaining an AI decision to key stakeholders. UK radiographers do not yet fully trust AI. Improvements are suggested

An evaluation of a training tool and study day in chest image interpretation

Background: With the use of expert consensus a digital tool was developed by the research team which proved useful when teaching radiographers how to interpret chest images. The training tool included A) a search strategy training tool and B) an educational tool to communicate the search strategies using eye tracking technology. This training tool has the potential to improve interpretation skills for other healthcare professionals.Methods: To investigate this, 31 healthcare professionals i.e. nurses and physiotherapists, were recruited and participants were randomised to receive access to the training tool (intervention group) or not to have access to the training tool (control group) for a period of 4-6 weeks. Participants were asked to interpret different sets of 20 chest images before and after the intervention period. A study day was then provided to all participants following which participants were again asked to interpret a different set of 20 chest images (n=1860). Each participant was asked to complete a questionnaire on their perceptions of the training provided. Results: Data analysis is in progress. 50% of participants did not have experience in image interpretation prior to the study. The study day and training tool were useful in improving image interpretation skills. Participants perception of the usefulness of the tool to aid image interpretation skills varied among respondents.Conclusion: This training tool has the potential to improve patient diagnosis and reduce healthcare costs

An exploration of the social factors that may have contributed in the UK to perceptions of work-relevant upper limb disorders in keyboard users

The outputs that form the basis of this PhD submission include a web site that summarises a unique collection of over 200 Court Judgments in personal injury claims for work-related upper limb disorders heard in the UK, together with a number of more conventional publications. Individually, these outputs all address upper limb disorders associated with work although they each had slightly different objectives and the audiences for which they were produced significantly influenced the type of publication in which they appeared. Together, they help illustrate when, how and, to some extent, why upper limb disorders associated with keyboard use became the issue it did in the UK in the late 1980s and 1990s. While many might now regard keyboard or computer use as an innocuous task, in the late 1980s and 1990s upper limb disorders associated with keyboard use, particularly computer use, became the subject of litigation, legislation, industrial disputes and widespread publicity. The outputs on which this submission is based, together, suggest that following the importation of the concept of repetitive strain injuries (RSI) from Australia in the later 1980s, the activities of trades unions and journalists in the UK promoted work-relevant upper limb symptoms and disorders associated with keyboard use as work-induced injuries. Subsequently, a small number of successful, union-backed, personal injury claims, which involved contentious medical evidence and perhaps an element of iatrogenesis, were widely promoted as proof that computer use causes injury. Around the same time, the government chose to implement flawed Regulations relating to the design and use of computer workstations, which failed to distinguish between that which might give rise to discomfort, fatigue and frustration and that which might give rise to injury. The existence of these Regulations, which among other things require regular, individual risk assessments of computer users, unlike any other type of work, could be interpreted as further 'proof' that computer use causes injury. The approach to the prevention and management of musculoskeletal disorders advocated in current HSE guidance, including the risk assessment strategy, remain capable of generating distorted perceptions of the risks arising from keyboard and computer use

Adviser\u27s Guide to Health Care, Volume 2: Consulting Services

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_guides/2721/thumbnail.jp