Strumwasser I, Paranjpe N V, Ronis D L, Share D, Sell L J
Michigan Health Care Education and Research Foundation, Detroit 48226.
Med Care. 1990 Feb;28(2):95-111. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199002000-00001.
A study was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP), the Standardized Medreview Instrument (SMI) and the Intensity-Severity-Discharge criteria set (ISD), three utilization review instruments used to determine whether inpatient care is required. Reliability and validity were assessed for retrospective application of these instruments to charts of a sample of 119 medical cases from 21 hospitals in the state of Michigan. The reliability of each instrument was determined by having the instrument applied by two different nurse reviewers to each hospital record. Results indicated that the AEP and ISD were moderately reliable, while the SMI had low reliability. The validity of each instrument was tested by comparing the judgments of nurse reviewers using the instruments with the judgment of a panel of physicians. The AEP and ISD were found to be moderately valid and the SMI was found to have low validity. Results suggested that the SMI should not be used. The modest level of validity of the other two instruments suggests that payment should never be denied on the basis of the instrument alone. Payment should be denied only if a physician confirms the judgment based on the instrument that inpatient care was not required.
开展了一项研究,以评估适用性评估方案(AEP)、标准化医疗审查工具(SMI)和强度-严重程度-出院标准集(ISD)这三种用于确定是否需要住院治疗的利用审查工具的可靠性和有效性。对这些工具在回顾性应用于密歇根州21家医院的119例医疗病例样本图表时的可靠性和有效性进行了评估。每种工具的可靠性通过让两名不同的护士审查员对每份医院记录应用该工具来确定。结果表明,AEP和ISD具有中等可靠性,而SMI的可靠性较低。通过将使用这些工具的护士审查员的判断与一组医生的判断进行比较,对每种工具的有效性进行了测试。发现AEP和ISD具有中等有效性,而SMI的有效性较低。结果表明不应使用SMI。其他两种工具的有效性处于中等水平,这表明绝不应仅基于该工具而拒绝支付费用。只有在医生根据该工具确认不需要住院治疗的判断时,才应拒绝支付费用。