Dataset Information

The sensitivity of adverse event cost estimates to diagnostic coding error.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the impact of diagnostic coding error on estimates of hospital costs attributable to adverse events.

Data sources

Original and reabstracted medical records of 9,670 complex medical and surgical admissions at 11 hospital corporations in Ontario from 2002 to 2004. Patient specific costs, not including physician payments, were retrieved from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative database.

Study design

Adverse events were identified among the original and reabstracted records using ICD10-CA (Canadian adaptation of ICD10) codes flagged as postadmission complications. Propensity score matching and multivariate regression analysis were used to estimate the cost of the adverse events and to determine the sensitivity of cost estimates to diagnostic coding error.

Principal findings

Estimates of the cost of the adverse events ranged from $16,008 (metabolic derangement) to $30,176 (upper gastrointestinal bleeding). Coding errors caused the total cost attributable to the adverse events to be underestimated by 16 percent. The impact of coding error on adverse event cost estimates was highly variable at the organizational level.

Conclusions

Estimates of adverse event costs are highly sensitive to coding error. Adverse event costs may be significantly underestimated if the likelihood of error is ignored.

SUBMITTER: Wardle G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3423172 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The sensitivity of adverse event cost estimates to diagnostic coding error.

Wardle Gavin G Wodchis Walter P WP Laporte Audrey A Anderson Geoffrey M GM Ross Baker G G

Health services research 20111027 3 Pt 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the impact of diagnostic coding error on estimates of hospital costs attributable to adverse events.<h4>Data sources</h4>Original and reabstracted medical records of 9,670 complex medical and surgical admissions at 11 hospital corporations in Ontario from 2002 to 2004. Patient specific costs, not including physician payments, were retrieved from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative database.<h4>Study design</h4>Adverse events were identified among the original and rea ...[more]

PMID: 22091908

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection.ObjectiveTo compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports.Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient.Main outcomes and measuresError and AE rates.ResultsOverall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates.Conclusions and relevanceFamilies provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.

Dataset Information

The sensitivity of adverse event cost estimates to diagnostic coding error.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

The sensitivity of adverse event cost estimates to diagnostic coding error.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets