• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

AHRQ 患者安全指标“术后伤口裂开”的阳性预测值。

Positive predictive value of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator "postoperative wound dehiscence".

机构信息

VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):962-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.01.053. Epub 2011 Apr 13.

DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.01.053
PMID:21489829
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicator (PSI) 14, or "postoperative wound dehiscence," is 1 of 4 PSIs recently adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to compare quality and safety across hospitals. We determined how well it identifies true cases of postoperative wound dehiscence by examining its positive predictive value (PPV).

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cross-sectional study of hospitalization records that met PSI 14 criteria was conducted within the Veterans Health Administration hospitals from fiscal years 2003 to 2007. Trained abstractors used standardized abstraction instruments to review electronic medical records. We determined the PPV of the indicator and performed descriptive analyses of cases.

RESULTS

Of the 112 reviewed cases, 97 were true events of postoperative wound dehiscence, yielding a PPV of 87% (95% CI 79% to 92%). Sixty-one percent (n = 59) of true positive cases had at least 1 risk factor, such as low albumin level, COPD, or superficial wound infection. False positives were due to coding errors, such as cases in which the patient's abdomen was intentionally left open during the index procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PSI 14 has relatively good predictive ability to identify true cases of postoperative wound dehiscence. It has the highest PPV among all PSIs evaluated within the Veterans Health Administration system. Inaccurate coding was the reason for false positives. Providing additional training to medical coders could potentially improve the PPV of this indicator. At present, this PSI is a promising measure for both quality improvement and performance measurement; however, its use in pay-for-performance efforts seems premature.

摘要

背景

医疗保健研究与质量局(Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)的患者安全指标(PSI)14,即“术后伤口裂开”,是医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)最近采用的 4 个 PSI 之一,用于比较医院之间的质量和安全性。我们通过检查其阳性预测值(PPV)来确定其识别真正术后伤口裂开病例的能力。

研究设计

对 2003 年至 2007 年退伍军人事务部(Veterans Health Administration)医院内符合 PSI 14 标准的住院记录进行回顾性横断面研究。经过培训的摘要员使用标准化的摘要工具审查电子病历。我们确定了该指标的阳性预测值,并对病例进行了描述性分析。

结果

在 112 例审查病例中,有 97 例是真正的术后伤口裂开事件,阳性预测值为 87%(95%置信区间为 79%至 92%)。61%(n=59)的真正阳性病例至少有 1 个风险因素,如低白蛋白水平、COPD 或浅表伤口感染。假阳性是由于编码错误,例如在索引过程中患者的腹部被故意留下敞开的情况。

结论

PSI 14 具有较好的预测能力,能够识别真正的术后伤口裂开病例。它在退伍军人事务部系统内评估的所有 PSI 中具有最高的阳性预测值。不准确的编码是假阳性的原因。为医疗编码员提供额外的培训可能会提高该指标的阳性预测值。目前,该 PSI 是质量改进和绩效衡量的一个有前途的指标;然而,在绩效付费方面的应用似乎还不成熟。

相似文献

1
Positive predictive value of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator "postoperative wound dehiscence".AHRQ 患者安全指标“术后伤口裂开”的阳性预测值。
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):962-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.01.053. Epub 2011 Apr 13.
2
Positive predictive value of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator "Postoperative Sepsis": implications for practice and policy.AHRQ 患者安全指标“术后败血症”的阳性预测值:对实践和政策的影响。
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):954-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.11.013. Epub 2011 Apr 7.
3
Detecting patient safety indicators: How valid is "foreign body left during procedure" in the Veterans Health Administration?检测患者安全指标:退伍军人健康管理局的“手术中遗留异物”有多准确?
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):977-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.02.003. Epub 2011 Apr 13.
4
How valid is the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator "postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma"?美国卫生保健研究与质量署患者安全指标“术后出血或血肿”的有效性如何?
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):946-953.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.09.033. Epub 2011 Apr 7.
5
How valid is the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator "postoperative physiologic and metabolic derangement"?美国卫生保健研究与质量署患者安全指标“术后生理和代谢紊乱”的有效性如何?
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):968-976.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.01.001. Epub 2011 Apr 13.
6
How valid is the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator "postoperative respiratory failure"?美国卫生保健研究与质量署患者安全指标“术后呼吸衰竭”的有效性如何?
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):935-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.09.034. Epub 2011 Apr 7.
7
Validity of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator "central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections".AHRQ 患者安全指标“中心静脉导管相关血流感染”的有效性。
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):984-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.02.005. Epub 2011 Apr 13.
8
Validity of selected Patient Safety Indicators: opportunities and concerns.选定的患者安全指标的有效性:机会与关注。
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):924-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.07.007. Epub 2010 Dec 14.
9
Validating the patient safety indicators in the Veterans Health Administration: do they accurately identify true safety events?验证退伍军人健康管理局的患者安全指标:它们是否能准确识别真实的安全事件?
Med Care. 2012 Jan;50(1):74-85. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182293edf.
10
Validating the patient safety indicators in the Veterans Health Administration: are they ready for prime time?验证退伍军人健康管理局中的患者安全指标:它们准备好全面推行了吗?
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):921-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.053.

引用本文的文献

1
Association of Blood Pressure Variability With Death and Discharge Destination Among Critically Ill Patients With and Without Stroke.血压变异性与有和无脑卒中的危重症患者死亡及出院去向的关联。
Neurology. 2023 Sep 12;101(11):e1145-e1157. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207599. Epub 2023 Jul 24.
2
Postoperative wound dehiscence after laparotomy: a useful healthcare quality indicator? A cohort study based on Norwegian hospital administrative data.剖腹术后切口裂开:一种有用的医疗保健质量指标?基于挪威医院管理数据的队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 3;9(4):e026422. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026422.
3
A comparison of two structured taxonomic strategies in capturing adverse events in U.S. hospitals.
两种结构化分类策略在美国医院中捕获不良事件的比较。
Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun;54(3):613-622. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13090. Epub 2018 Nov 25.
4
Validity and Reliability of Administrative Coded Data for the Identification of Hospital-Acquired Infections: An Updated Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis.行政编码数据用于医院获得性感染识别的有效性和可靠性:一项更新的系统评价、荟萃分析和荟萃回归分析。
Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun;53(3):1919-1956. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12691. Epub 2017 Apr 11.
5
Investigating selected patient safety indicators using medical records data.使用医疗记录数据调查选定的患者安全指标。
J Educ Health Promot. 2015 Aug 6;4:54. doi: 10.4103/2277-9531.162351. eCollection 2015.
6
Postoperative wound dehiscence: Predictors and associations.术后伤口裂开:预测因素与关联
Wound Repair Regen. 2015 Mar-Apr;23(2):184-90. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12268.
7
Using estimated true safety event rates versus flagged safety event rates: does it change hospital profiling and payment?使用估计的真实安全事件率与标记的安全事件率:这会改变医院的形象和支付方式吗?
Health Serv Res. 2014 Oct;49(5):1426-45. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12180. Epub 2014 Apr 30.
8
Using AHRQ patient safety indicators to detect postdischarge adverse events in the Veterans Health Administration.利用美国医疗保健研究与质量局患者安全指标检测退伍军人健康管理局出院后的不良事件。
Am J Med Qual. 2014 May-Jun;29(3):213-9. doi: 10.1177/1062860613494751. Epub 2013 Aug 12.