PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10311306

Using DRG data to justify additional clinical pharmacy staff.

Abstract

The administrative process used to justify additional clinical pharmacy staff is described. A combination of Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) financial data and clinical information was used to justify adding a full-time DRG clinical pharmacist to the 22.6 full-time pharmacy staff in a 316-bed, nonprofit community hospital. A seven-step process was used successfully to gain approval for the new position. A novel strategy was incorporated into the proposal that used a justification based on cost-containment and quality-of-care issues rather than on increased revenues. Also included in the proposal was an evaluation of the DRG clinical pharmacist position at 6 months and after 1 year, based on reducing costs as well as improving patient care. The position was described as an investment by the hospital that would provide a return at least equal to the cost of providing the position.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

O M Ibrahim, P N Catania, M A Mergener, H F Catania. 1985. Using DRG data to justify additional clinical pharmacy staff.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10311306/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10.

OBJECTIVE: Reliability of diagnoses coding is essential for the use of routine data in a national health care system. The present investigation compares reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 between three groups of coding subjects. METHOD: One hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists, 27 medical managers from hospitals 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists 12 discharge letters. Agreement in principal diagnosis was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and the fraction of coincidences over the number of pairs, agreement for the full set of diagnoses with a previously developed measure p(om). RESULTS: Kappa values were fair (managers) or moderate (coders) for terminal codes with 0.27 and 0.42 (agreement 29.2% versus 46.8%), substantial for the chapter level with 0.71 and 0.72 (agreement 78.3% versus 80.8%). p(om) was lower for the full set of diagnoses than for principal diagnoses, for example in case of managers with 0.21 versus 0.29 for terminal codes. Best results were achieved by students coding diagnoses lists. In summary, the results are remarkably lower than in earlier publications. CONCLUSION: The refinement of the ICD-10 accompanied by innumerous coding rules has established a complex environment that leads to significant uncertainties even for experts. Use of coded data for quality management, health care financing, and health care policy requires a remarkable simplification of ICD-10 to receive a valid image of health care reality.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗