Kubasiak John C, Francescatti Amanda B, Behal Raj, Myers Jonathan A
1 Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
2 Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.
Am J Med Qual. 2017 Mar/Apr;32(2):129-133. doi: 10.1177/1062860615618782. Epub 2016 Jul 9.
Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) were originally intended for use as a screen for quality of care but are now being used to rank hospitals and to modify hospital reimbursement. PSI data are dependent on accuracy of clinical documentation and coding. Information on whether a PSI event is inherent to the nature of the operation or posed a significant impact on the outcome is lacking. Cases for one year at a single academic center were queried. Cases with target PSIs were included (n = 136). Cases were evaluated for both the inherent nature and significance of injury. Both patient safety officers agreed that the PSI event was inherent to the disease process, and thus, the procedure and was not a marker of patient safety (false positive) in 11.8% to 33.3% of cases. Both reviewers agreed that the events were not clinically significant in 11.8% to 30.4% of cases. This study found high false-positive rates and only moderate interrater reliability for 3 PSIs. PSIs as currently reported are not reliable enough to be utilized for ranking.
患者安全指标(PSIs)最初旨在用作医疗质量的筛查工具,但现在正被用于对医院进行排名以及调整医院的报销额度。PSI数据依赖于临床文档记录和编码的准确性。关于PSI事件是手术性质所固有的还是对结果产生重大影响的信息尚缺。对一个学术中心一年的病例进行了查询。纳入了有目标PSI的病例(n = 136)。对病例的损伤固有性质和重要性进行了评估。两位患者安全官员均认为,在11.8%至33.3%的病例中,PSI事件是疾病过程所固有的,因此也是手术所固有的,并非患者安全的标志(假阳性)。两位评审员均认为,在11.8%至30.4%的病例中,这些事件并无临床意义。本研究发现3种PSI的假阳性率较高,且评分者间信度仅为中等。目前报告的PSI不够可靠,无法用于排名。