Suppr超能文献

识别院内静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE):基于索赔的方法与罗切斯特流行病学项目VTE队列的比较。

Identifying in-hospital venous thromboembolism (VTE): a comparison of claims-based approaches with the Rochester Epidemiology Project VTE cohort.

作者信息

Leibson Cynthia L, Needleman Jack, Buerhaus Peter, Heit John A, Melton L Joseph, Naessens James M, Bailey Kent R, Petterson Tanya M, Ransom Jeanine E, Harris Marcelline R

机构信息

Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester 55905, Minnesota, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 2008 Feb;46(2):127-32. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181589b92.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Efforts to identify hospital-acquired complications from claims data by applying exclusion rules to discharge diagnosis codes exhibit low positive predictive value (PPV). The PPV improves when a variable is added to each secondary diagnosis to indicate whether the condition was "present-on-admission" (POA) or "hospital-acquired". Such indicator variables will soon be required for Medicare reimbursement. No estimates are available, however, of the proportion of hospital-acquired complications that are missed (sensitivity) using either exclusion rules or indicator variables. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value (NPV) of claims-based approaches using the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) venous thromboembolism (VTE) cohort as a "gold standard."

METHODS

All inpatient encounters by Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents at Mayo Clinic-affiliated hospitals 1995-1998 constituted the at-risk-population. REP-identified hospital-acquired VTE consisted of all objectively-diagnosed VTE among County residents 1995-1998, whose onset of symptoms occurred during inpatient stays at these hospitals, as confirmed by detailed review of County residents' provider-linked medical records. Claims-based approaches used billing data from these hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 37,845 inpatient encounters, 98 had REP-identified hospital-acquired VTE; 47 (48%) were medical encounters. NPV and specificity were >99% for both claims-based approaches. Although indicator variables provided higher PPV (74%) compared with exclusion rules (35%), the sensitivity for exclusion rules was 74% compared with only 38% for indicator variables. Misclassification was greater for medical than surgical encounters.

CONCLUSIONS

Utility and accuracy of claims data for identifying hospital-acquired conditions, including POA indicator variables, requires close attention be paid by clinicians and coders to what is being recorded.

摘要

背景

通过对出院诊断代码应用排除规则从索赔数据中识别医院获得性并发症的方法,其阳性预测值(PPV)较低。当在每个二级诊断中添加一个变量以表明病情是“入院时存在”(POA)还是“医院获得性”时,PPV会提高。此类指示变量很快将被用于医疗保险报销。然而,目前尚无关于使用排除规则或指示变量遗漏的医院获得性并发症比例(敏感性)的估计。我们以罗切斯特流行病学项目(REP)静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)队列作为“金标准”,估计了基于索赔方法的敏感性、特异性、PPV和阴性预测值(NPV)。

方法

1995 - 1998年明尼苏达州奥尔姆斯特德县居民在梅奥诊所附属医院的所有住院诊疗构成了风险人群。REP识别的医院获得性VTE包括1995 - 1998年该县居民中所有经客观诊断的VTE,其症状发作发生在这些医院的住院期间,这通过对该县居民与医疗服务提供者相关的病历进行详细审查得以证实。基于索赔的方法使用了这些医院的计费数据。

结果

在37845次住院诊疗中,有98次经REP识别为医院获得性VTE;47次(48%)为内科诊疗。两种基于索赔的方法的NPV和特异性均>99%。尽管指示变量提供了比排除规则更高的PPV(74%),而排除规则的PPV为35%,但排除规则的敏感性为74%,而指示变量的敏感性仅为38%。内科诊疗的错误分类比外科诊疗更严重。

结论

包括POA指示变量在内的索赔数据用于识别医院获得性疾病的实用性和准确性,要求临床医生和编码人员密切关注所记录的内容。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验