Verification of administrative data to measure palliative care at terminal hospital stays.

Joanne M Stubbs, Hassan Assareh, Helen M Achat, Sally Greenaway, Poorani Muruganantham
{"title":"Verification of administrative data to measure palliative care at terminal hospital stays.","authors":"Joanne M Stubbs,&nbsp;Hassan Assareh,&nbsp;Helen M Achat,&nbsp;Sally Greenaway,&nbsp;Poorani Muruganantham","doi":"10.1177/1833358320968572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Administrative data and clinician documentation have not been directly compared for reporting palliative care, despite concerns about under-reporting.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to verify the use of routinely collected administrative data for reporting in-hospital palliation and to examine factors associated with coded palliative care in hospital administrative data.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Hospital administrative data and inpatient palliative care activity documented in medical records were compared for patients dying in hospital between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2017. Coding of palliative care in administrative data is based on hospital care type coded as \"palliative care\" and/or assignment of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) palliative care diagnosis code Z51.5. Medical records were searched for specified keywords, which, read in context, indicated a palliative approach to care. The list of keywords (palliative, end of life, comfort care, cease observations, crisis medications, comfort medications, syringe driver, pain or symptom management, no cardiopulmonary resuscitation, advance medical plan/resuscitation plan, deteriorating, agitation, restless and delirium) was developed in consultation with seven local clinicians specialising in palliative care or geriatric medicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 576 patients who died in hospital, 246 were coded as having received palliative care, either solely by the ICD-10-AM diagnosis code Z51.5 (42%) or in combination with a \"palliative care\" care type (58%). Just over one-third of dying patients had a palliative care specialist involved in their hospital care. Involvement of a palliative care specialist and a cancer diagnosis substantially increased the odds of a Z51.5 code (odds ratio = 11 and 4, respectively). The majority of patients with a \"syringe driver\" or identified as being at the \"end of life\" were assigned a Z51.5 code (73.5% and 70.5%, respectively), compared to 53.8% and 54.7%, respectively, for \"palliative\" or \"comfort care.\" For each keyword indicating a palliative approach to care, the Z51.5 code was more likely to be assigned if the patient had specialist palliative care input or if they had cancer.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest administrative data under-represented in-hospital palliative care, at least partly due to medical record documentation that failed to meet ICD-10-AM coding criteria. Collaboration between clinicians and coders can enhance the quality of records and, consequently, administrative data.</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":"52 1","pages":"28-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1833358320968572","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1833358320968572","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Administrative data and clinician documentation have not been directly compared for reporting palliative care, despite concerns about under-reporting.

Objective: The aim of this study was to verify the use of routinely collected administrative data for reporting in-hospital palliation and to examine factors associated with coded palliative care in hospital administrative data.

Method: Hospital administrative data and inpatient palliative care activity documented in medical records were compared for patients dying in hospital between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2017. Coding of palliative care in administrative data is based on hospital care type coded as "palliative care" and/or assignment of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) palliative care diagnosis code Z51.5. Medical records were searched for specified keywords, which, read in context, indicated a palliative approach to care. The list of keywords (palliative, end of life, comfort care, cease observations, crisis medications, comfort medications, syringe driver, pain or symptom management, no cardiopulmonary resuscitation, advance medical plan/resuscitation plan, deteriorating, agitation, restless and delirium) was developed in consultation with seven local clinicians specialising in palliative care or geriatric medicine.

Results: Of the 576 patients who died in hospital, 246 were coded as having received palliative care, either solely by the ICD-10-AM diagnosis code Z51.5 (42%) or in combination with a "palliative care" care type (58%). Just over one-third of dying patients had a palliative care specialist involved in their hospital care. Involvement of a palliative care specialist and a cancer diagnosis substantially increased the odds of a Z51.5 code (odds ratio = 11 and 4, respectively). The majority of patients with a "syringe driver" or identified as being at the "end of life" were assigned a Z51.5 code (73.5% and 70.5%, respectively), compared to 53.8% and 54.7%, respectively, for "palliative" or "comfort care." For each keyword indicating a palliative approach to care, the Z51.5 code was more likely to be assigned if the patient had specialist palliative care input or if they had cancer.

Conclusion: Our results suggest administrative data under-represented in-hospital palliative care, at least partly due to medical record documentation that failed to meet ICD-10-AM coding criteria. Collaboration between clinicians and coders can enhance the quality of records and, consequently, administrative data.

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
验证行政数据以衡量临终住院期间的姑息治疗。
背景:行政数据和临床医生文件没有直接比较报告姑息治疗,尽管担心少报。目的:本研究的目的是验证使用常规收集的行政数据来报告院内姑息治疗,并检查与医院行政数据中编码姑息治疗相关的因素。方法:比较2017年7月1日至2017年12月31日住院死亡患者的医院管理数据和住院姑息治疗活动记录。行政数据中的姑息治疗编码是基于编码为“姑息治疗”的医院护理类型和/或《国际疾病和相关健康问题统计分类第十次修订版,澳大利亚修订版(ICD-10-AM)姑息治疗诊断代码Z51.5的分配。在医疗记录中搜索特定的关键词,在上下文中阅读,这些关键词表明了一种姑息治疗方法。关键词列表(姑息治疗、临终关怀、舒适护理、停止观察、危重药物、舒适药物、注射器司机、疼痛或症状管理、无心肺复苏、提前医疗计划/复苏计划、恶化、躁动、躁动和谵妄)是在与当地7位专门从事姑息治疗或老年医学的临床医生协商后制定的。结果:在医院死亡的576名患者中,246名患者被编码为接受了姑息治疗,要么单独通过ICD-10-AM诊断代码Z51.5(42%),要么与“姑息治疗”护理类型相结合(58%)。超过三分之一的临终病人在医院护理中有姑息治疗专家参与。姑息治疗专家的参与和癌症诊断大大增加了Z51.5代码的几率(优势比分别为11和4)。大多数“注射器司机”或被确定为“生命终结”的患者被分配为Z51.5代码(分别为73.5%和70.5%),而“姑息治疗”或“舒适护理”的患者分别为53.8%和54.7%。对于指示姑息治疗方法的每个关键字,如果患者有专科姑息治疗输入或患有癌症,则更有可能分配Z51.5代码。结论:我们的研究结果表明,医院姑息治疗的行政数据代表性不足,至少部分原因是医疗记录文件不符合ICD-10-AM编码标准。临床医生和编码员之间的合作可以提高记录的质量,从而提高管理数据的质量。
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
Health information management students' work-integrated learning (professional practice placements): Where do they go and what do they do? Physician-clinical coder collaboration effectively improves coding accuracy: A single-centre prospective study in China. Physicians' acceptance and adoption of mobile health applications during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. The health information management workforce: Looking to the future. Demystifying environmental health-related diseases: Using ICD codes to facilitate environmental health clinical referrals.
×
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