Thomas J W, Ashcraft M L
Department of Health Services Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Inquiry. 1991 Spring;28(1):39-55.
This paper presents results from a study that used a common set of patient records to compared how well different severity measurement systems are able to explain the variations in estimated costs among hospital patients. The systems examined were: APACHE II, MedisGroups, Computerized Severity Index (CSI), Disease Staging, Patient Management Categories (PMCs), and Acuity Index Method. In regressions on costs, all of the measures were found to improve upon DRGs for some types of cases but to offer little or no improvement for others. Indicators of maximum severity, especially Max CSI, explained greater proportions of cost variation than measures of admission severity and measures based on discharge abstracts. In most of the analyses, PMCs and Disease Staging yielded somewhat higher R2 values than the measures of admission severity.
本文展示了一项研究的结果,该研究使用了一组通用的患者记录,以比较不同严重程度测量系统能够在多大程度上解释医院患者估计费用的差异。所研究的系统包括:急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)、医疗分组(MedisGroups)、计算机化严重程度指数(CSI)、疾病分期、患者管理类别(PMC)和 acuity指数法。在费用回归分析中,发现所有这些测量方法在某些类型的病例中比诊断相关分组(DRG)有所改进,但在其他病例中几乎没有改进或没有改进。最大严重程度指标,尤其是最大CSI,比入院严重程度测量指标和基于出院摘要的测量指标能解释更大比例的费用差异。在大多数分析中,PMC和疾病分期产生的决定系数(R2)值略高于入院严重程度测量指标。