(501) 830-1478 Request a Demo →
AccuCode abstracts quality measures from the complete medical record, calculates denominators and numerators per registry specification, and submits directly to CMS, The Joint Commission, and specialty registries. Your abstractors move from data entry to data governance.
A typical CMS SEP-1 sepsis case generates the equivalent of 177 single-spaced pages of clinical documentation across notes, flowsheets, labs, medication records, and imaging reports. No human can read it cover to cover, hold the chronology in working memory, and reason across it accurately. AccuCode reads all of it, in seconds, and returns every field bound to the exact passage in the chart that supports it.
Hospital quality departments employ certified clinical data abstractors to read charts, apply registry specifications field by field, and key values into registry portals one entry at a time. The problem is that modern clinical documentation has outgrown what any human can comprehensively process.
A typical CMS SEP-1 sepsis case generates roughly 177 single-spaced pages of structured and unstructured data spread across triage notes, hospitalist progress notes, nursing flowsheets, medication administration records, lab results, imaging reports, and discharge summaries. The information that actually matters for the abstraction, the moment sepsis criteria were first met, the time antibiotics were administered, the documentation of source identification, is rarely sitting in a structured field. It is buried in the text of clinical notes, in nursing observations, in pharmacy timestamps, and it requires reading and reasoning across all of them simultaneously to establish the chronology. Humans don't fail at this because they aren't trying. They fail because the task, performed comprehensively, exceeds what any individual can hold in working memory.
This is also why accuracy on registry abstraction has been stuck for two decades. The existing software category, rules-based extractors, looks at structured fields and dropdown entries. When the documentation matches the expected pattern, the extractor catches it. When it doesn't, which is most of the time, the extractor returns blank and asks the abstractor to find it manually. The result: software handles the easy data and humans handle the data that actually drives accuracy. The hard fields, the ones buried in clinical text, in nursing observations, in the unstructured narrative of how care actually unfolded, are exactly the fields the existing software category cannot read.
AccuCode reads the entire chart. Not the structured fields. The entire chart. Every triage note, every flowsheet entry, every progress note, every medication administration timestamp, every pharmacy record, every imaging report, every discharge summary, processed in parallel and reasoned across as a single unified clinical record. This is the architectural difference that makes accuracy go up dramatically, not by extracting better, but by being able to see the entire record in the first place. Most quality measure accuracy gaps are not abstractor errors. They are documentation that existed in the chart but was never read.
Most quality teams are perpetually behind. Abstractors burn out. The data that does get submitted is often incomplete because the timeline forces shortcuts. When registries reject submissions, which they do, frequently, for missing fields or specification violations, the rework cycle consumes additional weeks. This pattern repeats, quarter after quarter, at every US hospital that reports quality measures. The direct cost is enormous. The opportunity cost is worse.
AccuCode replaces the workflow entirely. Charts are abstracted automatically from ingestion through submission. The pipeline is fully automated. Your credentialed abstractors are not faster at the same work. They are doing different work: compliance sampling, exception handling, documentation improvement, and the governance role that a credentialed quality professional should hold. The work that remains is the work a credentialed abstractor is actually paid to do.
Most quality automation tools on the market today are rule-based extractors: pattern-match structured fields, fail silently when the pattern breaks, hand everything else back to the abstractor. AccuCode treats abstraction as the clinical reasoning task it actually is, the same task a certified abstractor performs at a different speed.
Rules-based tools look for specific structured fields in specific locations. When the documentation doesn't match the expected pattern (which is most of the time), the field is skipped and the abstractor is left to find it manually.
This is why "automation" saves abstractors maybe fifteen percent of their time. The work that's left is the work that was always hard.
Treat abstraction the way a trained clinician does: read the full chart, weight evidence, resolve conflicts between documents, apply the registry's specification guidance, and cite the specific passage supporting every value.
This is why AccuCode exceeds certified-abstractor concordance on blinded audits. The system does what a good abstractor does. Faster.
Most vendors compare their accuracy to humans and arrive at a number close to but slightly below human reliability. The question they don't ask: what is human reliability, really?
Clinical abstraction has no single AHIMA-equivalent benchmark for what credentialed human accuracy actually is. But three independent authoritative measurements all reach a similar floor. The federal CMS Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Validation Program, which re-abstracts hospital quality measure data to verify accuracy, sets its passing threshold at 75%.
Peer-reviewed inter-rater reliability studies of credentialed chart abstractors consistently produce Cohen's kappa values in the 0.51 to 0.84 range, classified by the methodology literature as "substantial" agreement, not "near perfect." AHRQ's own reliability testing of its evidence-grading instruments, conducted on credentialed raters reviewing the same material, found kappa values as low as 0.27. The implication is uncomfortable for the vendor category but unambiguous in the literature: credentialed human chart abstraction has a structural ceiling well below the 95% to 99% numbers vendors typically claim against it.
AccuCode's models were never trained on patient encounters and will not be trained on customer data. No proprietary content from any registry steward or measure developer was used in training. The architecture does not pattern-match against past human-abstracted examples. The system was built the way you would train a person to perform the same task: it reads clinical documentation and reasons from what is documented, then produces output that conforms to the current CMS Hospital IQR measure definitions, current Joint Commission core measure sets, and current AHA Get With The Guidelines specifications. The result is a system whose accuracy ceiling is not the noisy human ground truth of a training corpus, because there is no such corpus. The ceiling is the accuracy of the reasoning applied to the documentation and the measure logic in front of it.
The assumption that adding a human reviewer to an AI system improves accuracy is intuitive but empirically wrong in the published research. A 2024 randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open found that LLM systems alone achieved 92% accuracy on diagnostic reasoning tasks, while physicians using the same LLM achieved only 76% accuracy, barely better than the 74% they achieved without it. The researchers concluded that adding physicians to AI did not significantly improve clinical reasoning. AccuCode's own data, described below, produces an even stronger version of the same finding for the narrower task of chart abstraction.
Over an audit period spanning more than eighteen months, AccuCode was tested against credentialed human abstractors at Baptist Health Arkansas across all measures in the three largest US quality reporting frameworks: CMS Hospital IQR, Joint Commission core measures, and the AHA Get With The Guidelines registry suite. Every data element on every chart, on every revision of the system, was adjudicated to consensus by a multi-stakeholder panel that included Baptist Health's senior clinical and quality leadership.
Two things to notice. First, even the worst-performing measure on the unrefined Revision 0 of the system, 95.6%, exceeds CMS's own federal validation threshold for hospital quality measure data by roughly twenty points. AccuCode's worst result, on its worst day, is far above what the federal regulator considers passing for credentialed human abstraction. Second, the production system achieves 99.61% on its worst measure, against a multi-stakeholder Baptist Health panel that a corporate medical vice presidents personally adjudicating every disputed data element. The remaining error rate on the hardest measure is less than four-tenths of one percent. This is why AccuCode operates as a fully automated abstraction pipeline. You have full audit access through the validation interface, and you should sample regularly for compliance and drift. But routing every chart through routine human review does not improve accuracy. The published literature, the federal validation program, and a 2024 JAMA randomized clinical trial all converge on the same finding: adding human review to a high-accuracy system reduces accuracy, not increases it.
The audit was structured as iterative multi-revision panel adjudication. The system produced abstractions for a sample of Baptist Health charts. Every data element was reviewed by the original Baptist Health abstractor, who flagged disagreements. Disagreements were then routed to Dr. Amanda Novack and to a panel that included the original Baptist abstraction team and AccuCode's internal clinical informatics team, lead Caitlyn Wright. Every flagged element was investigated against the source documentation and the relevant measure specification, with each adjudicated to consensus. Findings were used to refine the system. The refined version was then re-audited through the same process. Three full audit cycles were completed before any production-ready version of the system (Revision 3) is approved for general deployment.
Cohen's kappa and percent agreement were both calculated, in alignment with the methodology used in CMS's own Hospital IQR Validation Program and in the peer-reviewed inter-rater reliability literature. The "lowest measure" figures cited above (95.6% on Revision 0, 99.61% on Revision 3) refer to the worst-performing individual measure within the audit scope on each revision, post-adjudication. Performance on every other measure within the scope was higher.
After Revision 3 of each measure is approved for production, AccuCode performed an Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR) assessment for Baptist Health using the validated R3 output as the reference standard, in the same form that hospitals routinely use to assess their internal abstractor reliability. The observed range for credentialed human abstractor scores against R3 was consistent with the published literature on credentialed inter-rater reliability documented in the panel above, and with CMS's own 75% validation threshold.
Audit scope covered all measures in the CMS Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) program, all Joint Commission core measure sets, and the AHA Get With The Guidelines registry suite. The initial audit spanned more than eighteen months and tens of thousands of individually adjudicated data elements.
Most quality vendors validate their abstraction accuracy internally and ask hospitals to trust the results. Baptist Health Arkansas took the opposite approach. Before readying AccuCode in production, Baptist's quality team conducted three full audit cycles of the system, with a corporate medical vice president personally adjudicating every disputed data element across CMS Hospital IQR, Joint Commission core measures, and the AHA Get With The Guidelines registry suite.
The adjudication panel was led by Amanda Novack, MD, Baptist's Corporate Medical VP of Quality and Safety, and Robert Furrey, Corporate VP of Clinical Performance Improvement. The team included Baptist's original abstractor staff, an independent secondary Baptist abstractor panel, and AccuCode's clinical informatics lead. Three revisions of the system were audited end-to-end until the production version reached 99.61% on its worst-performing measure.
The system generates abstractions directly from the chart; Baptist's quality team uses the validation interface for compliance sampling and the IRR reports AccuCode delivers as ongoing documentation that the production output continues to meet the consensus-validated standard.
Each registry is implemented from its current specification. Not from a generic template. When a registry updates its measure definitions, we update within the grace period and notify every affected customer. Specification versions are tracked, so submissions made under prior versions remain reproducible for audit purposes.
Fields with low confidence are flagged for abstractor review with a full explanation of why. When documentation is genuinely incomplete (a field that should exist per the specification but is not present in the chart), AccuCode marks the field as missing and provides the abstractor with the specification language and guidance on documentation improvement.
Field-level concordance with a blinded panel of senior certified abstractors coding the same charts independently. We report per-field, per-measure, and overall concordance. The relevant baseline is inter-abstractor agreement, which in most studies sits in the mid-80s range. We publish our methodology for every audit.
Either. We support direct submission via each registry's production API where available, or export to the registry's upload format for your team to submit manually. Most customers use direct submission for high-volume registries and manual upload for low-volume ones.
Yes. AccuCode supports both. For eCQMs, we generate QRDA Category I (patient-level) output. For chart-abstracted measures, we produce the registry-native format. Hybrid measure sets (which are increasingly common) are supported natively in one workflow.
Typically 50–100 historical charts for one registry, run in parallel with your abstractor team. We measure concordance, citation quality, and time-to-abstract on both sides. You see whether the accuracy and workflow meet your bar before committing to production deployment. Pilot runs on de-identified data under an executed BAA.
Every employee who can touch customer PHI is US-based. All infrastructure is US-region. Customer data is never used for model training under any circumstances. AccuCode does not train models on patient data of any kind, whether identified, de-identified, aggregated, or synthetic. There is no contractual path by which your PHI becomes training data, because the system does not learn from patient encounters at all. Full detail in our Security & Compliance documentation.
A 30-minute scoping call, a pilot on your active registry submissions, and a measured result before you commit. We'll show accuracy on your charts, not ours.