Suppr超能文献

一种基于国际疾病分类第十版(ICD - 10)诊断的精细方法,用于对已故者索赔数据中潜在姑息治疗需求和覆盖情况进行回顾性分析。

A refined ICD-10 diagnoses-based approach for retrospective analysis of potential palliative care need and coverage in claims data of deceased.

作者信息

Slotina Ekaterina, Ditscheid Bianka, Meissner Franziska, Marschall Ursula, Wedding Ulrich, Freytag Antje

机构信息

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.

Barmer Institute for Health Systems Research, Berlin, Wuppertal, Germany.

出版信息

SAGE Open Med. 2024 Aug 13;12:20503121241269599. doi: 10.1177/20503121241269599. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

ICD-10-based approaches often provide the basis for retrospective estimation of potential palliative care need. Applying the ICD-10-based Murtagh et al. classification from 2014 (Murtagh classification), developed using mortality data, to administrative claims data leads to inconsistencies in estimating palliative care need. The aim of the study was to refine the classification for palliative care need estimation in deceased individuals with cancer and non-cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based study comparing Murtagh classification to a new ICD-10-based classification (revised by expert opinion) was conducted using outpatient and inpatient claims data, including billing codes for palliative care. Palliative care need was estimated for diagnoses groups and was contrasted with palliative care utilization rates in the last year of life. Our dataset included records of 417,405 individuals who deceased in 2016-2019.

RESULTS

Out of individuals deceased in 2019 ( = 117,436), 81.4% had at least one diagnosis from the new classification, while 97.0% had at least one diagnosis from the Murtagh classification. Classification revision thus identified fewer individuals as potentially in need of palliative care. Among individuals with cancer, 70.7% (vs. 55.7% via Murtagh classification) received palliative care. In non-cancer subgroups, the utilization rate was considerably lower, with a maximum of 36.7% (vs. 33.7% via Murtagh classification) in 2019. Similar results were observed for the other years.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the ICD10-based Murtagh classification, the revised ICD-10-based classification enables more realistic estimations if the cause of death is unavailable and reveals higher rates of palliative care coverage and differences especially in cancer versus non-cancer diseases. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00024133).

摘要

目的

基于国际疾病分类第十版(ICD - 10)的方法通常为回顾性估计潜在姑息治疗需求提供依据。将2014年基于ICD - 10的莫塔格等人的分类法(莫塔格分类法,利用死亡率数据制定)应用于行政索赔数据会导致在估计姑息治疗需求时出现不一致情况。本研究的目的是完善针对患有癌症和非癌症诊断的已故个体的姑息治疗需求估计分类法。

方法

使用门诊和住院索赔数据(包括姑息治疗计费代码)进行了一项基于人群的回顾性研究,将莫塔格分类法与一种新的基于ICD - 10的分类法(经专家意见修订)进行比较。对诊断组的姑息治疗需求进行了估计,并与生命最后一年的姑息治疗利用率进行了对比。我们的数据集包括2016 - 2019年死亡的417,405人的记录。

结果

在2019年死亡的个体(n = 117,436)中,81.4%至少有一项来自新分类法的诊断,而97.0%至少有一项来自莫塔格分类法的诊断。因此,分类法修订后确定可能需要姑息治疗的个体较少。在患有癌症的个体中,70.7%(相比通过莫塔格分类法的55.7%)接受了姑息治疗。在非癌症亚组中,利用率要低得多,2019年最高为36.7%(相比通过莫塔格分类法的33.7%)。其他年份也观察到了类似结果。

结论

与基于ICD - 10的莫塔格分类法相比,如果死亡原因未知,修订后的基于ICD - 10的分类法能够进行更现实的估计,并揭示出更高的姑息治疗覆盖率以及尤其是癌症与非癌症疾病之间的差异。德国临床试验注册中心(DRKS00024133)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3bd4/11322944/bad8a4150ebe/10.1177_20503121241269599-fig1.jpg

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