Dataset Information

How well do discharge diagnoses identify hospitalised patients with community-acquired infections?--a validation study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Credible measures of disease incidence, trends and mortality can be obtained through surveillance using manual chart review, but this is both time-consuming and expensive. ICD-10 discharge diagnoses are used as surrogate markers of infection, but knowledge on the validity of infections in general is sparse. The aim of the study was to determine how well ICD-10 discharge diagnoses identify patients with community-acquired infections in a medical emergency department (ED), overall and related to sites of infection and patient characteristics.

Methods

We manually reviewed 5977 patients admitted to a medical ED in a one-year period (September 2010-August 2011), to establish if they were hospitalised with community-acquired infection. Using the manual review as gold standard, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of discharge diagnoses indicating infection.

Results

Two thousand five hundred eleven patients were identified with community-acquired infection according to chart review (42.0%, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 40.8-43.3%) compared to 2550 patients identified by ICD-10 diagnoses (42.8%, 95%CI: 41.6-44.1%). Sensitivity of the ICD-10 diagnoses was 79.9% (95%CI: 78.1-81.3%), specificity 83.9% (95%CI: 82.6-85.1%), positive likelihood ratio 4.95 (95%CI: 4.58-5.36) and negative likelihood ratio 0.24 (95%CI: 0.22-0.26). The two most common sites of infection, the lower respiratory tract and urinary tract, had positive likelihood ratios of 8.3 (95%CI: 7.5-9.2) and 11.3 (95%CI: 10.2-12.9) respectively. We identified significant variation in diagnostic validity related to age, comorbidity and disease severity.

Conclusion

ICD-10 discharge diagnoses identify specific sites of infection with a high degree of validity, but only a moderate degree when identifying infections in general.

SUBMITTER: Henriksen DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3963967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Discharge Care Experiences Survey (DICARES) was previously developed to measure quality of discharge care in elderly patients (≥ 65 years). The objective of this study was to test the factorial validity of responses of the DICARES, and to investigate its association with existing quality indicators. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional study at two hospitals in Bergen, Western Norway. A survey, including DICARES, was sent by postal mail to 1,418 patients 30 days after discharge from hospital. To test the previously identified three-factor structure of the DICARES we applied a first order confirmatory factor analysis with corresponding fit indices and reliability measures. Spearman's correlation coefficients, and linear regression, was used to investigate the association of DICARES scores with the quality indicators Nordic Patient Experiences Questionnaire and emergency readmission within 30 days. RESULTS:A total of 493 (35%) patients completed the survey. The mean age of the respondents was 79 years (SD = 8) and 52% were women. The confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable fit. Cronbach's α between items within factors was 0.82 (Coping after discharge), 0.71 (Adherence to treatment), and 0.66 (Participation in discharge planning). DICARES was moderately correlated with the Nordic Patient Experiences Questionnaire (rho = 0.49, P < 0.001). DICARES overall score was higher in patients with no readmissions compared to those who were emergency readmitted within 30 days (P < 0.001), indicating that more positive experiences were associated with fewer readmissions. CONCLUSIONS:DICARES appears to be a feasible instrument for measuring quality of discharge care in elderly patients (≥ 65 years). This brief questionnaire seems to be sensitive with regard to readmission, and independent of comorbidity. Further studies of patients' experiences are warranted to identify elements that impact on discharge care in other patient groups.

Project description:ObjectivesHospitalisations for serious infections are common among middle age and older adults and frequently used as study outcomes. Yet, few studies have evaluated the performance of diagnosis codes to identify serious infections in this population. We sought to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of diagnosis codes for identifying hospitalisations due to serious infections among middle age and older adults.Setting and participantsWe identified hospitalisations for possible infection among adults >=50 years enrolled in the Tennessee Medicaid healthcare programme (2008-2012) using International Classifications of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes for pneumonia, meningitis/encephalitis, bacteraemia/sepsis, cellulitis/soft-tissue infections, endocarditis, pyelonephritis and septic arthritis/osteomyelitis.DesignMedical records were systematically obtained from hospitals randomly selected from a stratified sampling framework based on geographical region and hospital discharge volume.MeasuresTwo trained clinical reviewers used a standardised extraction form to abstract information from medical records. Predefined algorithms served as reference to adjudicate confirmed infection-specific hospitalisations. We calculated the PPV of diagnosis codes using confirmed hospitalisations as reference. Sensitivity analyses determined the robustness of the PPV to definitions that required radiological or microbiological confirmation. We also determined inter-rater reliability between reviewers.ResultsThe PPV of diagnosis codes for hospitalisations for infection (n=716) was 90.2% (95% CI 87.8% to 92.2%). The PPV was highest for pneumonia (96.5% (95% CI 93.9% to 98.0%)) and cellulitis (91.1% (95% CI 84.7% to 94.9%)), and lowest for meningitis/encephalitis (50.0% (95% CI 23.7% to 76.3%)). The adjudication reliability was excellent (92.7% agreement; first agreement coefficient: 0.91). The overall PPV was lower when requiring microbiological confirmation (45%) and when requiring radiological confirmation for pneumonia (79%).ConclusionsDischarge diagnosis codes have a high PPV for identifying hospitalisations for common, serious infections among middle age and older adults. PPV estimates for rare infections were imprecise.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify aetiologies of childhood community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) based on a comprehensive diagnostic approach.Design'Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research-Pneumonia in Paediatrics (PEER-PePPeS)' study was an observational prospective cohort study conducted from July 2017 to September 2019.SettingGovernment referral teaching hospitals and satellite sites in three cities in Indonesia: Semarang, Yogyakarta and Tangerang.ParticipantsHospitalised children aged 2-59 months who met the criteria for pneumonia were eligible. Children were excluded if they had been hospitalised for >24 hours; had malignancy or history of malignancy; a history of long-term (>2 months) steroid therapy, or conditions that might interfere with compliance with study procedures.Main outcomes measuresCausative bacterial, viral or mixed pathogen(s) for pneumonia were determined using microbiological, molecular and serological tests from routinely collected specimens (blood, sputum and nasopharyngeal swabs). We applied a previously published algorithm (PEER-PePPeS rules) to determine the causative pathogen(s).Results188 subjects were enrolled. Based on our algorithm, 48 (25.5%) had a bacterial infection, 31 (16.5%) had a viral infection, 76 (40.4%) had mixed bacterial and viral infections, and 33 (17.6%) were unable to be classified. The five most common causative pathogens identified were Haemophilus influenzae non-type B (N=73, 38.8%), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (N=51, 27.1%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (N=43, 22.9%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (N=29, 15.4%) and Influenza virus (N=25, 13.3%). RSV and influenza virus diagnoses were highly associated with Indonesia's rainy season (November-March). The PCR assays on induced sputum (IS) specimens captured most of the pathogens identified in this study.ConclusionsOur study found that H. influenzae non-type B and RSV were the most frequently identified pathogens causing hospitalised CAP among Indonesian children aged 2-59 months old. Our study also highlights the importance of PCR for diagnosis and by extension, appropriate use of antimicrobials.Trail registration numberNCT03366454.