Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2002
Is sepsis accurately coded on hospital bills?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ollendorf Daniel A, Fendrick A Mark, Massey Karen, Williams G Rhys, Oster Gerry
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether sepsis is accurately coded on hospital bills.
METHODS: Hospital inpatient uniform bills (UB-92) for 122 patients with clinically documented severe sepsis of presumed infectious origin were retrospectively examined. Final UB-92 hospital bills were obtained for all study subjects. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes from these bills were then reviewed to ascertain the number of subjects for whom one or more diagnostic codes for septicemia and/or bacteremia were present.
RESULTS: A total of 92 hospital bills (75.4%) contained one or more ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes for septicemia and/or bacteremia. Of the 30 that did not, 15 (12.3%) had codes for major systemic infection and organ failure. No diagnoses indicative of sepsis (i.e., organ failure and major infection) were present on the remaining 15 (12.3%) bills.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that use of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying patients with sepsis using hospital bills is only moderately sensitive. Strict reliance on administrative data sources for sepsis surveillance or research planning may therefore be prone to substantial error.
METHODS: Hospital inpatient uniform bills (UB-92) for 122 patients with clinically documented severe sepsis of presumed infectious origin were retrospectively examined. Final UB-92 hospital bills were obtained for all study subjects. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes from these bills were then reviewed to ascertain the number of subjects for whom one or more diagnostic codes for septicemia and/or bacteremia were present.
RESULTS: A total of 92 hospital bills (75.4%) contained one or more ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes for septicemia and/or bacteremia. Of the 30 that did not, 15 (12.3%) had codes for major systemic infection and organ failure. No diagnoses indicative of sepsis (i.e., organ failure and major infection) were present on the remaining 15 (12.3%) bills.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that use of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying patients with sepsis using hospital bills is only moderately sensitive. Strict reliance on administrative data sources for sepsis surveillance or research planning may therefore be prone to substantial error.