• 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“中心静脉导管相关血流感染”的有效性。

Validity of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator "central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections".

机构信息

Department of Surgery, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Jun;212(6):984-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.02.005. Epub 2011 Apr 13.

DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.02.005
PMID:21489833
Abstract

BACKGROUND

"Central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections" (CR-BSIs) is one of the patient safety indicators (PSI 7) developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to screen for potential safety events. We sought to investigate the validity of this PSI using the medical record as the gold standard.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of all hospitalization records that met the criteria for PSI 7 within Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals from fiscal years 2003 to 2007. Trained abstractors used a standardized abstraction tool to review electronic medical records for the presence of a CR-BSI and the clinical circumstances surrounding the event. We determined the validity of this PSI by calculating its positive predictive value (PPV), and analyzed both true and false positive cases.

RESULTS

Of 112 reviewed cases, 42 were true events of CR-BSIs, yielding a PPV of 38% (95% CI 29% to 47%). Seventy cases were false positives; these were attributed to correct ICD-9-CM codes but had diagnoses that fell outside the scope of the indicator (n = 28, 40%), coding inaccuracies (n = 21, 30%); and present on admission (POA) diagnoses (n = 21; 30%). Among the 42 patients with CR-BSIs, catheters were left in place for an average of 11 days, and 20% (n = 8) were placed in the femoral position.

CONCLUSIONS

PSI 7 has relatively poor predictive ability for identifying true events. Coding-related issues were the main reason for the low PPV. Implementing POA codes and using more specific ICD-9-CM codes would improve its validity. As it currently stands, PSI 7 should not be used as a pay-for-performance measure, but should be limited to use in internal quality improvement efforts.

摘要

背景

“中心静脉导管相关血流感染”(CR-BSI)是医疗保健研究与质量署(AHRQ)开发的患者安全指标(PSI 7)之一,用于筛选潜在的安全事件。我们试图使用病历作为金标准来验证该 PSI 的有效性。

研究设计

我们对 2003 年至 2007 年期间退伍军人健康管理局(VA)医院中符合 PSI 7 标准的所有住院记录进行了回顾性横断面研究。经过培训的摘要员使用标准化的摘要工具来审查电子病历中是否存在 CR-BSI 以及事件发生时的临床情况。我们通过计算阳性预测值(PPV)来确定该 PSI 的有效性,并分析了真阳性和假阳性病例。

结果

在 112 例审查病例中,有 42 例为 CR-BSI 的真实事件,阳性预测值为 38%(95%CI 29%至 47%)。70 例为假阳性;这些归因于正确的 ICD-9-CM 代码,但诊断超出了指标范围(n=28,40%),编码不准确(n=21,30%);和入院时诊断(n=21,30%)。在 42 例 CR-BSI 患者中,导管留置时间平均为 11 天,20%(n=8)放置在股静脉位置。

结论

PSI 7 对识别真实事件的预测能力相对较差。与编码相关的问题是导致低 PPV 的主要原因。实施入院时编码和使用更具体的 ICD-9-CM 代码将提高其有效性。就目前情况而言,PSI 7 不应作为绩效付费的指标,而应仅限于内部质量改进工作。

相似文献

1
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.
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
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.
4
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.
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
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.
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
Positive predictive value of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicator for central line-related bloodstream infection ("selected infections due to medical care").医疗保健研究与质量局患者安全指标对中心静脉导管相关血流感染(“因医疗护理导致的特定感染”)的阳性预测值。
J Healthc Qual. 2011 Mar-Apr;33(2):29-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1945-1474.2010.00114.x. Epub 2011 Jan 11.
10
How best to measure surgical quality? Comparison of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (AHRQ-PSI) and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) postoperative adverse events at a single institution.如何最好地衡量手术质量?在单一机构中比较医疗保健研究和质量局患者安全指标 (AHRQ-PSI) 和美国外科医师学会国家手术质量改进计划 (ACS-NSQIP) 的术后不良事件。
Surgery. 2011 Nov;150(5):943-9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.06.020. Epub 2011 Aug 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Accuracy of administrative data for surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review.用于监测医疗保健相关感染的行政数据的准确性:一项系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2015 Aug 27;5(8):e008424. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008424.
2
Quantity Over Quality: How the Rise in Quality Measures is Not Producing Quality Results.数量高于质量:质量衡量标准的提高如何并未产生高质量的结果。
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Aug;30(8):1204-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3278-6. Epub 2015 Mar 24.
3
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.
4
Perioperative patient safety indicators and hospital surgical volumes.围手术期患者安全指标与医院手术量
BMC Res Notes. 2014 Feb 28;7:117. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-117.
5
Impact of including readmissions for qualifying events in the patient safety indicators.将符合条件事件的再入院纳入患者安全指标的影响。
Am J Med Qual. 2015 Mar-Apr;30(2):114-8. doi: 10.1177/1062860613518341. Epub 2014 Jan 24.
6
Validity of ICD-9-CM codes for the identification of complications related to central venous catheterization.用于识别与中心静脉置管相关并发症的国际疾病分类第九版临床修正版(ICD-9-CM)编码的有效性。
Am J Med Qual. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):52-7. doi: 10.1177/1062860613512518. Epub 2013 Dec 16.
7
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.
8
Should policy-makers and managers trust PSI? An empirical validation study of five patient safety indicators in a national health service.政策制定者和管理者是否应该信任 PSI?在国家卫生服务中对五个患者安全指标的实证验证研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Feb 27;12:19. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-19.