DRG coding practice: a nationwide hospital survey in Thailand

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) payment is preferred by healthcare reform in various countries but its implementation in resource-limited countries has not been fully explored.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>This study was aimed (1) to compare the characteristics of hospitals in Thailand that were audited with those that were not and (2) to develop a simplified scale to measure hospital coding practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A questionnaire survey was conducted of 920 hospitals in the Summary and Coding Audit Database (SCAD hospitals, all of which were audited in 2008 because of suspicious reports of possible DRG miscoding); the questionnaire also included 390 non-SCAD hospitals. The questionnaire asked about general demographics of the hospitals, hospital coding structure and process, and also included a set of 63 opinion-oriented items on the current hospital coding practice. Descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used for data analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>SCAD and Non-SCAD hospitals were different in many aspects, especially the number of medical statisticians, experience of medical statisticians and physicians, as well as number of certified coders. Factor analysis revealed a simplified 3-factor, 20-item model to assess hospital coding practice and classify hospital intention.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Hospital providers should not be assumed capable of producing high quality DRG codes, especially in resource-limited settings.</p

Do coder characteristics influence validity of ICD-10 hospital discharge data?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Administrative data are widely used to study health systems and make important health policy decisions. Yet little is known about the influence of coder characteristics on administrative data validity in these studies. Our goal was to describe the relationship between several measures of validity in coded hospital discharge data and 1) coders' volume of coding (≥13,000 vs. <13,000 records), 2) coders' employment status (full- vs. part-time), and 3) hospital type.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This descriptive study examined 6 indicators of face validity in ICD-10 coded discharge records from 4 hospitals in Calgary, Canada between April 2002 and March 2007. Specifically, mean number of coded diagnoses, procedures, complications, Z-codes, and codes ending in 8 or 9 were compared by coding volume and employment status, as well as hospital type. The mean number of diagnoses was also compared across coder characteristics for 6 major conditions of varying complexity. Next, kappa statistics were computed to assess agreement between discharge data and linked chart data reabstracted by nursing chart reviewers. Kappas were compared across coder characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>422,618 discharge records were coded by 59 coders during the study period. The mean number of diagnoses per record decreased from 5.2 in 2002/2003 to 3.9 in 2006/2007, while the number of records coded annually increased from 69,613 to 102,842. Coders at the tertiary hospital coded the most diagnoses (5.0 compared with 3.9 and 3.8 at other sites). There was no variation by coder or site characteristics for any other face validity indicator. The mean number of diagnoses increased from 1.5 to 7.9 with increasing complexity of the major diagnosis, but did not vary with coder characteristics. Agreement (kappa) between coded data and chart review did not show any consistent pattern with respect to coder characteristics.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This large study suggests that coder characteristics do not influence the validity of hospital discharge data. Other jurisdictions might benefit from implementing similar employment programs to ours, e.g.: a requirement for a 2-year college training program, a single management structure across sites, and rotation of coders between sites. Limitations include few coder characteristics available for study due to privacy concerns.</p

Health information seeking on the Internet: a double divide? Results from a representative survey in the Paris metropolitan area, France, 2005–2006

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Internet is a major source of information for professionals and the general public, especially in the field of health. However, despite ever-increasing connection rates, a digital divide persists in the industrialised countries. The objective of this study was to assess the determinants involved in: 1) having or not having Internet access; and 2) using or not using the Internet to obtain health information.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey of a representative random sample was conducted in the Paris metropolitan area, France, in the fall of 2005 (n = 3023).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Close to 70% of the adult population had Internet access, and 49% of Internet users had previously searched for medical information. Economic and social disparities observed in online health information seeking are reinforced by the economic and social disparities in Internet access, hence a double divide. While individuals who reported having a recent health problem were less likely to have Internet access (odds ratio (OR): 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53–0.98), it is they who, when they have Internet access, are the most likely to search for health information (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.11–1.87).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In the French context of universal health insurance, access to the Internet varies according to social and socioeconomic status and health status, and its use for health information seeking varies also with health beliefs, but not to health insurance coverage or health-care utilisation. Certain economic and social inequalities seem to impact cumulatively on Internet access and on the use of the Internet for health information seeking. It is not obvious that the Internet is a special information tool for primary prevention in people who are the furthest removed from health concerns. However, the Internet appears to be a useful complement for secondary prevention, especially for better understanding health problems or enhancing therapeutic compliance.</p

Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Electronic health record (EHR) implementation is currently underway in Canada, as in many other countries. These ambitious projects involve many stakeholders with unique perceptions of the implementation process. EHR users have an important role to play as they must integrate the EHR system into their work environments and use it in their everyday activities. Users hold valuable, first-hand knowledge of what can limit or contribute to the success of EHR implementation projects. A comprehensive synthesis of EHR users' perceptions is key to successful future implementation. This systematic literature review was aimed to synthesize current knowledge of the barriers and facilitators influencing shared EHR implementation among its various users.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Covering a period from 1999 to 2009, a literature search was conducted on nine electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported on users' perceived barriers and facilitators to shared EHR implementation, in healthcare settings comparable to Canada. Studies in all languages with an empirical study design were included. Quality and relevance of the studies were assessed. Four EHR user groups were targeted: physicians, other health care professionals, managers, and patients/public. Content analysis was performed independently by two authors using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators for each group of EHR users.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of a total of 5,695 potentially relevant publications identified, 117 full text publications were obtained after screening titles and abstracts. After review of the full articles, 60 publications, corresponding to 52 studies, met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent adoption factors common to all user groups were design and technical concerns, ease of use, interoperability, privacy and security, costs, productivity, familiarity and ability with EHR, motivation to use EHR, patient and health professional interaction, and lack of time and workload. Each user group also identified factors specific to their professional and individual priorities.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This systematic review presents innovative research on the barriers and facilitators to EHR implementation. While important similarities between user groups are highlighted, differences between them demonstrate that each user group also has a unique perspective of the implementation process that should be taken into account.</p