Are Patients With an International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition Discharge Diagnosis Code for Sepsis Different in Regard to Demographics and Outcome Variables When Comparing Those With Sepsis Only to Those Also Diagnosed With COVID-19 or Those With a COVID-19 Diagnosis Alone?

David F Gaieski, Jumpei Tsukuda, Parker Maddox, Michael Li
{"title":"Are Patients With an International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition Discharge Diagnosis Code for Sepsis Different in Regard to Demographics and Outcome Variables When Comparing Those With Sepsis Only to Those Also Diagnosed With COVID-19 or Those With a COVID-19 Diagnosis Alone?","authors":"David F Gaieski,&nbsp;Jumpei Tsukuda,&nbsp;Parker Maddox,&nbsp;Michael Li","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We analyzed whether patients with the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (ICD-10) discharge diagnosis code for sepsis are different in regard to demographics and outcome variables when comparing those with sepsis only to those also diagnosed with COVID-19 or those with a COVID-19 diagnosis alone.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Nine hospitals in an academic health system.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients with a final ICD-10 discharge diagnostic code for sepsis only, a diagnosis of COVID-19-only, or a final sepsis ICD-10 discharge code + a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to the hospital were analyzed for demographic and outcome differences between the cohorts.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>A total of 11,395 patients met inclusion criteria: 6,945 patients (60.9%) were ICD-10 sepsis code only, 3,294 patients (28.9%) were COVID-19 diagnosis-only, and 1,153 patients (10.1%) were sepsis ICD-10 code + COVID-19 diagnosis. Comparing sepsis ICD-10 code + COVID-19 diagnosis patients to sepsis ICD-10 code only and COVID-19 diagnosis-only patients, the sepsis ICD-10 code + COVID-19 diagnosis patients were: older (69 [58-78] vs 67 [56-77] vs 64 [51-76] yr), less likely to be female (40.3% vs 46.7% vs 49.5%), more frequently admitted to the ICU (59.3% [684/1,153] vs 54.9% [1,810/3,297] vs 15% [1,042/6,945]), more frequently required ventilatory support (39.3% [453/1,153] vs 31.8% [1,049/3,297] vs 6.0% [417/6,945]), had longer median hospital length of stay (9 [5,16] vs 5 [3,8] vs 7. [4,13] d), and were more likely to die in the hospital (39.2% [452/1,153] vs 22.3% [735/3,297] vs 6.4% [444/6,945]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic the sickest cohort of patients was those receiving an explicit ICD-10 code of sepsis + a COVID-19 diagnosis. A significant percentage of COVID-19 diagnosis-only patients appear to have been under-coded as they received a level of critical care (ICU admission; intubation) suggestive of the presence of acute organ dysfunction during their admission.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0964"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/73/8a/cc9-5-e0964.PMC10461943.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000964","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We analyzed whether patients with the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (ICD-10) discharge diagnosis code for sepsis are different in regard to demographics and outcome variables when comparing those with sepsis only to those also diagnosed with COVID-19 or those with a COVID-19 diagnosis alone.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Nine hospitals in an academic health system.

Patients: Patients with a final ICD-10 discharge diagnostic code for sepsis only, a diagnosis of COVID-19-only, or a final sepsis ICD-10 discharge code + a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to the hospital were analyzed for demographic and outcome differences between the cohorts.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: A total of 11,395 patients met inclusion criteria: 6,945 patients (60.9%) were ICD-10 sepsis code only, 3,294 patients (28.9%) were COVID-19 diagnosis-only, and 1,153 patients (10.1%) were sepsis ICD-10 code + COVID-19 diagnosis. Comparing sepsis ICD-10 code + COVID-19 diagnosis patients to sepsis ICD-10 code only and COVID-19 diagnosis-only patients, the sepsis ICD-10 code + COVID-19 diagnosis patients were: older (69 [58-78] vs 67 [56-77] vs 64 [51-76] yr), less likely to be female (40.3% vs 46.7% vs 49.5%), more frequently admitted to the ICU (59.3% [684/1,153] vs 54.9% [1,810/3,297] vs 15% [1,042/6,945]), more frequently required ventilatory support (39.3% [453/1,153] vs 31.8% [1,049/3,297] vs 6.0% [417/6,945]), had longer median hospital length of stay (9 [5,16] vs 5 [3,8] vs 7. [4,13] d), and were more likely to die in the hospital (39.2% [452/1,153] vs 22.3% [735/3,297] vs 6.4% [444/6,945]).

Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic the sickest cohort of patients was those receiving an explicit ICD-10 code of sepsis + a COVID-19 diagnosis. A significant percentage of COVID-19 diagnosis-only patients appear to have been under-coded as they received a level of critical care (ICU admission; intubation) suggestive of the presence of acute organ dysfunction during their admission.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际疾病分类第10版脓毒症出院诊断代码患者与仅患有脓毒症的患者或仅患有COVID-19的患者相比,在人口统计学和结局变量方面存在差异吗?
目的:我们分析使用国际疾病分类第10版(ICD-10)脓毒症出院诊断代码的患者与仅诊断为COVID-19的患者或仅诊断为COVID-19的患者相比,在人口统计学和结局变量方面是否存在差异。设计:回顾性队列研究。环境:一个学术卫生系统中的九家医院。患者:分析最终ICD-10出院诊断代码仅为败血症、仅诊断为COVID-19或最终败血症ICD-10出院代码+诊断为COVID-19入院的患者的人口统计学和结局差异。干预措施:没有。测量结果及主要结果:共11395例患者符合纳入标准:仅ICD-10败血症代码6945例(60.9%),仅诊断COVID-19的3294例(28.9%),败血症ICD-10代码+ COVID-19诊断的1153例(10.1%)。将败血症ICD-10编码+ COVID-19诊断患者与仅ICD-10编码和仅诊断COVID-19的患者进行比较,败血症ICD-10编码+ COVID-19诊断患者为:年龄较大(69岁[58-78岁]vs 67岁[56-77岁]vs 64岁[51-76岁]),女性较少(40.3% vs 46.7% vs 49.5%),更频繁地入住ICU (59.3% [684/1,153] vs 54.9% [1,810/3,297] vs 15%[1,042/6,945]),更频繁地需要呼吸支持(39.3% [453/1,153]vs 31.8% [1,049/3,297] vs 6.0%[417/6,945]),住院时间中位数更长(9 [5,16]vs 5 [3,8] vs 7)。[4,13] d),并且更容易在医院死亡(39.2% [452/1,153]vs 22.3% [735/3,297] vs 6.4%[444/6,945])。结论:在COVID-19大流行期间,病情最严重的患者队列是接受明确的ICD-10败血症代码+ COVID-19诊断的患者。很大一部分仅诊断为COVID-19的患者似乎被低估了,因为他们接受了一定程度的重症监护(ICU入院;插管)提示入院时存在急性器官功能障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A New Dosing Frontier: Retrospective Assessment of Effluent Flow Rates and Residual Renal Function Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Hemodynamic Determinants of Cardiac Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Racial Differences in Accuracy of Predictive Models for High-Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in COVID-19 Knowledge and Practice Gaps in Pediatric Neurocritical Care Nursing: Lessons Learned From a Specialized Educational Boot Camp Unifying Fluid Responsiveness and Tolerance With Physiology: A Dynamic Interpretation of the Diamond–Forrester Classification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1