Sheehy Ann M, Caponi Bartho, Gangireddy Sreedevi, Hamedani Azita G, Pothof Jeffrey J, Siegal Eric, Graf Ben K
Department of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
J Hosp Med. 2014 Apr;9(4):203-9. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2163. Epub 2014 Feb 14.
In response to growing concern over frequency and duration of observation encounters, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enacted a rules change on October 1, 2013, classifying most hospital encounters of <2 midnights as observation, and those ≥2 midnights as inpatient. However, limited data exist to predict the impact of the new rule.
To answer the following: (1) Will the rule reduce observation encounter frequency? (2) Are short-stay (<2 midnights) inpatient encounters often misclassified observation encounters? (3) Do 2 midnights separate distinct clinical populations, making this rule logical? (4) Do nonclinical factors such as time of day of admission impact classification under the rule?
DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Retrospective descriptive study of all observation and inpatient encounters initiated between January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013 at a Midwestern academic medical center.
Demographics, insurance type, and characteristics of hospitalization were abstracted for each encounter.
Of 36,193 encounters, 4,769 (13.2%) were observation. Applying the new rules predicted a net loss of 14.9% inpatient stays; for Medicare only, a loss of 7.4%. Less than 2-midnight inpatient and observation stays were different, sharing only 1 of 5 top International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes, but for encounters classified as observation, 4 of 5 top ICD-9 codes were the same across the length of stay. Observation encounters starting before 8:00 am less commonly spanned 2 midnights (13.6%) than later encounters (31.2%).
The 2-midnight rule adds new challenges to observation and inpatient policy. These findings suggest a need for rules modification.
鉴于对观察性诊疗时长和频率的担忧日益增加,医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心于2013年10月1日颁布了一项规则变更,将大多数住院时长不足2个午夜的诊疗归为观察性诊疗,而住院时长达到或超过2个午夜的则归为住院诊疗。然而,用于预测新规则影响的数据有限。
回答以下问题:(1)该规则是否会降低观察性诊疗的频率?(2)短期住院(不足2个午夜)的住院诊疗是否经常被错误分类为观察性诊疗?(3)2个午夜是否区分了不同的临床人群,从而使该规则具有逻辑性?(4)诸如入院时间等非临床因素是否会影响该规则下的分类?
设计、设置与患者:对2012年1月1日至2013年2月28日期间在一家中西部学术医疗中心发起的所有观察性和住院诊疗进行回顾性描述性研究。
提取每次诊疗的人口统计学信息、保险类型和住院特征。
在36,193次诊疗中,4,769次(13.2%)为观察性诊疗。应用新规则预测住院天数将净减少14.9%;仅针对医疗保险患者,减少7.4%。住院时长不足2个午夜的住院诊疗和观察性诊疗有所不同,在国际疾病分类第九版(ICD - 9)的5个最常见编码中仅共享1个,但对于分类为观察性诊疗的情况,在整个住院期间,5个最常见ICD - 9编码中有4个是相同的。上午8:00之前开始的观察性诊疗跨越2个午夜的情况(13.6%)比之后开始的诊疗(31.2%)少见。
2个午夜规则给观察性诊疗和住院政策带来了新的挑战。这些发现表明需要对规则进行修改。