Capturing diagnosis-timing in ICD-coded hospital data: recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 topic advisory group on quality and safety

Purpose To develop a consensus opinion regarding capturing diagnosis-timing in coded hospital data. Methods As part of the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases-11th Revision initiative, the Quality and Safety Topic Advisory Group is charged with enhancing the capture of quality and patient safety information in morbidity data sets. One such feature is a diagnosis-timing flag. The Group has undertaken a narrative literature review, scanned national experiences focusing on countries currently using timing flags, and held a series of meetings to derive formal recommendations regarding diagnosis-timing reporting. Results The completeness of diagnosis-timing reporting continues to improve with experience and use; studies indicate that it enhances risk-adjustment and may have a substantial impact on hospital performance estimates, especially for conditions/procedures that involve acutely ill patients. However, studies suggest that its reliability varies, is better for surgical than medical patients (kappa in hip fracture patients of 0.7-1.0 versus kappa in pneumonia of 0.2-0.6) and is dependent on coder training and setting. It may allow simpler and more precise specification of quality indicators. Conclusions As the evidence indicates that a diagnosis-timing flag improves the ability of routinely collected, coded hospital data to support outcomes research and the development of quality and safety indicators, the Group recommends that a classification of ‘arising after admission' (yes/no), with permitted designations of ‘unknown or clinically undetermined', will facilitate coding while providing flexibility when there is uncertainty. Clear coding standards and guidelines with ongoing coder education will be necessary to ensure reliability of the diagnosis-timing fla

International variation in the definition of ‘main condition' in ICD-coded health data

Hospital-based medical records are abstracted to create International Classification of Disease (ICD) coded discharge health data in many countries. The ‘main condition' is not defined in a consistent manner internationally. Some countries employ a ‘reason for admission' rule as the basis for the main condition, while other countries employ a ‘resource use' rule. A few countries have recently transitioned from one of these approaches to the other. The definition of ‘main condition' in such ICD data matters when it is used to define a disease cohort to assign diagnosis-related groups and to perform risk adjustment. We propose a method of harmonizing the international definition to enable researchers and international organizations using ICD-coded health data to aggregate or compare hospital care and outcomes across countries in a consistent manner. Inter-observer reliability of alternative harmonization approaches should be evaluated before finalizing the definition and adopting it worldwid

Capturing diagnosis-timing in ICD-coded hospital data: recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 topic advisory group on quality and safety.

PURPOSE: To develop a consensus opinion regarding capturing diagnosis-timing in coded hospital data. METHODS: As part of the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases-11th Revision initiative, the Quality and Safety Topic Advisory Group is charged with enhancing the capture of quality and patient safety information in morbidity data sets. One such feature is a diagnosis-timing flag. The Group has undertaken a narrative literature review, scanned national experiences focusing on countries currently using timing flags, and held a series of meetings to derive formal recommendations regarding diagnosis-timing reporting. RESULTS: The completeness of diagnosis-timing reporting continues to improve with experience and use; studies indicate that it enhances risk-adjustment and may have a substantial impact on hospital performance estimates, especially for conditions/procedures that involve acutely ill patients. However, studies suggest that its reliability varies, is better for surgical than medical patients (kappa in hip fracture patients of 0.7-1.0 versus kappa in pneumonia of 0.2-0.6) and is dependent on coder training and setting. It may allow simpler and more precise specification of quality indicators. CONCLUSIONS: As the evidence indicates that a diagnosis-timing flag improves the ability of routinely collected, coded hospital data to support outcomes research and the development of quality and safety indicators, the Group recommends that a classification of 'arising after admission' (yes/no), with permitted designations of 'unknown or clinically undetermined', will facilitate coding while providing flexibility when there is uncertainty. Clear coding standards and guidelines with ongoing coder education will be necessary to ensure reliability of the diagnosis-timing flag

International variation in the definition of 'main condition' in ICD-coded health data

Hospital-based medical records are abstracted to create International Classification of Disease (ICD) coded discharge health data in many countries. The 'main condition' is not defined in a consistent manner internationally. Some countries employ a 'reason for admission' rule as the basis for the main condition, while other countries employ a 'resource use' rule. A few countries have recently transitioned from one of these approaches to the other. The definition of 'main condition' in such ICD data matters when it is used to define a disease cohort to assign diagnosis-related groups and to perform risk adjustment. We propose a method of harmonizing the international definition to enable researchers and international organizations using ICD-coded health data to aggregate or compare hospital care and outcomes across countries in a consistent manner. Inter-observer reliability of alternative harmonization approaches should be evaluated before finalizing the definition and adopting it worldwide

Active smoking and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT: Observational studies have suggested an association between active smoking and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies assessing the association between active smoking and incidence of type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE (1966 to May 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to May 2007) databases was supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of key retrieved articles, reviews of abstracts from scientific meetings, and contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they reported risk of impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or type 2 diabetes in relationship to smoking status at baseline; had a cohort design; and excluded persons with diabetes at baseline. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently extracted the data, including the presence or absence of active smoking at baseline, the risk of diabetes, methods used to detect diabetes, and key criteria of study quality. Relative risks (RRs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Associations were tested in subgroups representing different patient characteristics and study quality criteria. RESULTS: The search yielded 25 prospective cohort studies (N = 1.2 million participants) that reported 45 844 incident cases of diabetes during a study follow-up period ranging from 5 to 30 years. Of the 25 studies, 24 reported adjusted RRs greater than 1 (range for all studies, 0.82-3.74). The pooled adjusted RR was 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.58). Results were consistent and statistically significant in all subgroups. The risk of diabetes was greater for heavy smokers (> or =20 cigarettes/day; RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.43-1.80) than for lighter smokers (RR,1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.48) and lower for former smokers (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33) compared with active smokers, consistent with a dose-response phenomenon. CONCLUSION: Active smoking is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Future research should attempt to establish whether this association is causal and to clarify its mechanisms

Efficacy of in-hospital multidimensional interventions of secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention programs for patients experiencing an acute coronary syndrome have been shown to be effective in the outpatient setting. The efficacy of in-hospital prevention interventions administered soon after acute cardiac events is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether in-hospital, patient-level interventions targeting multiple cardiovascular risk factors reduce all-cause mortality after an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a prespecified search strategy, we included controlled clinical trials and before-after studies of secondary prevention interventions with at least a patient-level component (ie, education, counseling, or patient-specific order sets) initiated in hospital with outcomes of mortality, readmission, or reinfarction rates in acute coronary syndrome patients. We classified the interventions as patient-level interventions with or without associated healthcare provider-level interventions and/or system-level interventions. Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. The summary estimate of 14 studies revealed a relative risk of all-cause mortality of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92; n=37,585) at 1 year. However, the apparent benefit depended on study design and level of intervention. The before-after studies suggested reduced mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.90; n=3680 deaths), whereas the RR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.44; n=99 deaths) among the controlled clinical trials. Only interventions including a provider- or system-level intervention suggested reduced mortality compared with patient-level-only interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for in-hospital, patient-level interventions for secondary prevention is promising but not definitive because only before-after studies suggest a significant reduction in mortality. Future research should formally test which components of interventions provide the greatest benefit

Effectiveness of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-management programs: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Disease-management programs may enhance the quality of care provided to patients with chronic diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of COPD disease-management programs. METHODS: We conducted a computerized search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) for studies evaluating interventions meeting our operational definition of disease management: patient education, 2 or more different intervention components, 2 or more health care professionals actively involved in patients' care, and intervention lasting 12 months or more. Programs conducted in hospital only and those targeting patients receiving palliative care were excluded. Two reviewers evaluated 12,749 titles and fully reviewed 139 articles; among these, data from 13 studies were included and extracted. Clinical outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, lung function, exercise capacity (walking distance), health-related quality of life, symptoms, COPD exacerbations, and health care use. A meta-analysis of exercise capacity and all-cause mortality was performed using random-effects models. RESULTS: The studies included were 9 randomized controlled trials, 1 controlled trial, and 3 uncontrolled before-after trials. Results indicate that the disease-management programs studied significantly improved exercise capacity (32.2 m, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-60.3), decreased risk of hospitalization, and moderately improved health-related quality of life. All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (pooled odds ratio 0.84, 95% CI, 0.54-1.40). CONCLUSION: COPD disease-management programs modestly improved exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, and hospital admissions, but not all-cause mortality. Future studies should explore the specific elements or characteristics of these programs that bring the greatest benefit

Physicians' attitudes towards prevention: importance of intervention-specific barriers and physicians' health habits.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have explored physicians' attitudes towards prevention and barriers to the delivery of preventive health interventions. However, the relative importance of these previously identified barriers, both in general terms and in the context of a number of specific preventive interventions, has not been identified. Certain barriers may only pertain to a subset of preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the relative importance of identified barriers to preventive interventions and to explore the association between physicians' characteristics and their attitudes towards prevention. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 496 of the 686 (72.3% response rate) generalist physicians from three Swiss cantons through a questionnaire asking physicians to rate the general importance of eight preventive health strategies and the relative importance of seven commonly cited barriers in relation to each specific preventive health strategy. RESULTS: The proportion of physicians rating each preventive intervention as being important varied from 76% for colorectal cancer screening to 100% for blood pressure control. Lack of time and lack of patient interest were generally considered to be important barriers by 41% and 44% of physicians, respectively, but the importance of these two barriers tended to be specifically higher for counselling-based interventions. Lack of training was most notably a barrier to counselling about alcohol and nutrition. Four characteristics of physicians predicted negative attitudes toward alcohol and smoking counselling: consumption of more than three alcoholic drinks per day [odds ratio (OR) = 8.4], sedentary lifestyle (OR = 3.4), lack of national certification (OR = 2.2) and lack of awareness of their own blood pressure (OR = 2.0). CONCLUSIONS: The relative importance of specific barriers varies across preventive interventions. This points to a need for tailored practice interventions targeting the specific barriers that impede a given preventive service. The negative influence of physicians' own health behaviours indicates a need for associated population-based interventions that reduce the prevalence of high-risk behaviours in the population as a whole