Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), University Hospital Center and Faculty of Biology and Medicine, Biopole 2, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Oct 31;13:453. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-453.
Pharmacy-based case mix measures are an alternative source of information to the relatively scarce outpatient diagnoses data. But most published tools use national drug nomenclatures and offer no head-to-head comparisons between drugs-related and diagnoses-based categories. The objective of the study was to test the accuracy of drugs-based morbidity groups derived from the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification of drugs by checking them against diagnoses-based groups.
We compared drugs-based categories with their diagnoses-based analogues using anonymous data on 108,915 individuals insured with one of four companies. They were followed throughout 2005 and 2006 and hospitalized at least once during this period. The agreement between the two approaches was measured by weighted kappa coefficients. The reproducibility of the drugs-based morbidity measure over the 2 years was assessed for all enrollees.
Eighty percent used a drug associated with at least one of the 60 morbidity categories derived from drugs dispensation. After accounting for inpatient under-coding, fifteen conditions agreed sufficiently with their diagnoses-based counterparts to be considered alternative strategies to diagnoses. In addition, they exhibited good reproducibility and allowed prevalence estimates in accordance with national estimates. For 22 conditions, drugs-based information identified accurately a subset of the population defined by diagnoses.
Most categories provide insurers with health status information that could be exploited for healthcare expenditure prediction or ambulatory cost control, especially when ambulatory diagnoses are not available. However, due to insufficient concordance with their diagnoses-based analogues, their use for morbidity indicators is limited.
基于药房的病例组合衡量标准是相对稀缺的门诊诊断数据的另一种信息来源。但大多数已发布的工具都使用国家药物命名法,并且没有对药物相关类别和诊断类别进行直接比较。本研究的目的是通过检查与诊断相关的类别,测试源自世界卫生组织药物解剖治疗化学分类的基于药物的发病率组别的准确性。
我们使用来自四家公司之一的 108,915 名参保人的匿名数据,将基于药物的类别与基于诊断的类似物进行比较。他们在 2005 年和 2006 年期间被跟踪,并且在此期间至少住院一次。两种方法之间的一致性通过加权 kappa 系数来衡量。对于所有参保人,评估了药物发病率衡量标准在两年内的可重复性。
80%的人使用了一种与从药物配药中得出的 60 种发病率类别中的至少一种相关的药物。在考虑到住院患者编码不足的情况下,有十五种情况与基于诊断的对应情况足够一致,可以被视为诊断的替代策略。此外,它们具有良好的可重复性,并允许根据国家估计值进行患病率估计。对于 22 种情况,基于药物的信息准确地确定了诊断定义的人群子集。
大多数类别为保险公司提供了可以用于医疗支出预测或门诊费用控制的健康状况信息,尤其是在没有门诊诊断的情况下。然而,由于与基于诊断的类似物的一致性不足,它们在发病率指标中的使用受到限制。