PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15778795

A methodological framework for the conversion of procedure classifications.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: During the adaptation of the Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups for Germany mapping tables between procedure classifications were needed. The mapping between the German OPS-301 2.0 and the Australian MBS-Extended should transfer the Australian expertise by keeping a well-established terminology system. METHODS: A methodological framework for the development of mapping tables had been developed based on the model for representation of semantics provided by the European Committee of Standardization. Two approaches were used; the concept-based approach from OPS-301 2.0 to MBS-Extended and the class-based approach the other way round. A conversion had to be identified between 23,160 classes of the OPS-301 2.0 and 6,328 classes of the MBS-Extended in two asymmetrical mapping tables. RESULTS: The class-based approach leads to a low number of 6,980 conversions but misses 82.6% of the classes of the OPS-301. Because of domain incongruencies and missing domain completeness of the OPS-301 2.0 for non-operative procedures 15.7% of the MBS-Extended-classes remain without conversion. The concept-based approach leads to a slightly higher mean number of conversions per class of 1.35 in comparison to 1.31 with the class-based approach. But it was possible to find conversions for 99.5% of the OPS-301 2.0-classes. 16.3% of the DRG-relevant classes of the MBS-Extended were missed. CONCLUSIONS: The class-based approach was not useful, because the MBS-Extended is significantly broader than the OPS-301 2.0. An external validation study for the direction OPS-301 2.0 to MBS-Extended revealed a satisfactory quality. The empirical and the reference-based approach are important alternatives to the ones used in this project. There are clear criteria about the appropriate application area for the methodological approaches presented here.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Stausberg, B Dahmen, S Drösler. 2005. A methodological framework for the conversion of procedure classifications.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15778795/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Medicare program; prospective payment system for long-term care hospitals RY 2007: annual payment rate updates, policy changes, and clarification. Final rule.

This final rule updates the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). The payment amounts and factors used to determine the updated Federal rates that are described in this final rule have been determined for the LTCH PPS rate year July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The annual update of the long-term care diagnosis-related group (LTC-DRG) classifications and relative weights remains linked to the annual adjustments of the acute care hospital inpatient diagnosis-related group system, and will continue to be effective each October 1. The outlier threshold for July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, is also derived from the LTCH PPS rate year calculations. We are also finalizing policy changes and making clarifications.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗

The effect of misclassification errors on case mix measurement.

Case mix systems have been implemented for hospital reimbursement and performance measurement across Europe and North America. Case mix categorizes patients into discrete groups based on clinical information obtained from patient charts in an attempt to identify clinical or cost difference amongst these groups. The diagnosis related group (DRG) case mix system is the most common methodology, with variants adopted in many countries. External validation studies of coding quality have confirmed that widespread variability exists between originally recorded diagnoses and re-abstracted clinical information. DRG assignment errors in hospitals that share patient level cost data for the purpose of establishing cost weights affects cost weight accuracy. The purpose of this study is to estimate bias in cost weights due to measurement error of reported clinical information. DRG assignment error rates are simulated based on recent clinical re-abstraction study results. Our simulation study estimates that 47% of cost weights representing the least severe cases are over weight by 10%, while 32% of cost weights representing the most severe cases are under weight by 10%. Applying the simulated weights to a cross-section of hospitals, we find that teaching hospitals tend to be under weight. Since inaccurate cost weights challenges the ability of case mix systems to accurately reflect patient mix and may lead to potential distortions in hospital funding, bias in hospital case mix measurement highlights the role clinical data quality plays in hospital funding in countries that use DRG-type case mix systems. Quality of clinical information should be carefully considered from hospitals that contribute financial data for establishing cost weights.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗