PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10170740

The impact of different coding systems on DRG assignment and data.

B Reid
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) classification system is widely used to describe the casemix of acute care hospitals, making it possible to compare the casemix of hospitals from different countries. However, in order to fully understand these comparisons, it is necessary to clarify the impact which the different coding systems used in various countries may have had on the results. The DRG system is based on codes from the International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision Clinical Modification (ICD9CM). Countries which use other coding systems convert, i.e. map, their codes into the nearest ICD9CM equivalent before allocating the DRGs. The impact of mapping on both medical and surgical DRGs is discussed and new titles are given for the affected DRGs. As far as possible, problems caused by mapping are distinguished from those caused by differences in coding practices. Based on the analysis of the classification systems, the mapping tables and the resulting DRG data, it is concluded that using mapped data does not have a great impact on the DRGs. Only 37 DRGs (7.8%), 15 medical and 22 surgical classes, are affected by mapping problems. However, while the scale of these problems is not large, given the large number of different surgical classification systems currently in use in Europe, the introduction of a standard surgical classification system for Europe is recommended.

Explore related subjects

Abstracting and IndexingAustraliaData CollectionDiagnosis-Related GroupsDiseaseEuropeEvaluation Studies as TopicHospitalizationMedical RecordsSurgical Procedures, OperativeJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Reid. 1991. The impact of different coding systems on DRG assignment and data.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(91)90050-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

A comparative evaluation of full-text, concept-based, and context-sensitive search.

OBJECTIVES: Study comparatively (1) concept-based search, using documents pre-indexed by a conceptual hierarchy; (2) context-sensitive search, using structured, labeled documents; and (3) traditional full-text search. Hypotheses were: (1) more contexts lead to better retrieval accuracy; and (2) adding concept-based search to the other searches would improve upon their baseline performances. DESIGN: Use our Vaidurya architecture, for search and retrieval evaluation, of structured documents classified by a conceptual hierarchy, on a clinical guidelines test collection. MEASUREMENTS: Precision computed at different levels of recall to assess the contribution of the retrieval methods. Comparisons of precisions done with recall set at 0.5, using t-tests. RESULTS: Performance increased monotonically with the number of query context elements. Adding context-sensitive elements, mean improvement was 11.1% at recall 0.5. With three contexts, mean query precision was 42% +/- 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31% to 53%); with two contexts, 32% +/- 13% (95% CI, 27% to 38%); and one context, 20% +/- 9% (95% CI, 15% to 24%). Adding context-based queries to full-text queries monotonically improved precision beyond the 0.4 level of recall. Mean improvement was 4.5% at recall 0.5. Adding concept-based search to full-text search improved precision to 19.4% at recall 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated usefulness of concept-based and context-sensitive queries for enhancing the precision of retrieval from a digital library of semi-structured clinical guideline documents. Concept-based searches outperformed free-text queries, especially when baseline precision was low. In general, the more ontological elements used in the query, the greater the resulting precision.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2007

Improvements to the Red List Index.

The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings. Two additional advantages of the revisions are that assessment errors are not propagated through time, and the overall level extinction risk can be determined as well as trends in this over time.

Abstracting and Indexing↗