Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:20:51.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Administrative Diagnostic Data to Assess the Quality of Hospital Care: Pitfalls and Potential of ICD-9-CM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Lisa I. Iezzoni
Lisa I. Iezzoni
Affiliation:
Boston University School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diagnostic information within administrative data bases is generally in the form of lnternational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. The purpose of this article is to introduce ICD-9-CM, to review its strengths and limitations, and to suggest ways that it can be used through administrative files for assessing the quality of hospital care.

Type
Special Section: Measuring Health Care Effectiveness: Use of Large Data Bases for Technology and Quality Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , January 1990 , pp. 272 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1American Hospital Association. ICD-9-CM coding handbook for entry-level coders, with answers. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Publishing, Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
2Aquilina, D., Mclaughlin, B., & Levy, S.Using severity data to measure quality. Business and Health, 1988, 5, 40–2.Google ScholarPubMed
3Brewster, A. C., Jacobs, C. M., & Bradbury, R. C. Classifying severity of illness using clinical findings. Health Care Financing Review, 1984 (annual supplement), 107–08.Google Scholar
4Brewster, A. C., Karlin, B. G., Hyde, L. A. et al. , MEDISGRPS: A clinically based approach to classifying hospital patients at admission. Inquiry, 1985, 12, 377–87.Google Scholar
5Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor. Manual for the International List of Causes of Death. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1911, 40.Google Scholar
6Feinstein, A. R.ICD, POR, and DRG. Unsolved scientific problems in the nosology of clinical medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1988, 148, 2269–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Ginsburg, P. B., & Hammons, G. T.Competition and the quality of care: The importance of information. Inquiry, 1988, 25, 108–15.Google ScholarPubMed
8Gonnella, J. S., & Goran, M. J.Quality of patient care—a measurement of change: The staging concept. Medical Care, 1975, 13, 467–73.Google Scholar
9Gonnella, J. S., Hornbrook, M. C., & Louis, D. Z.Staging of disease. A case-mix measurement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984, 251, 637–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Gonnella, J. S., ed. Disease staging clinical criteria, 3rd ed.Santa Barbara, CA: SysteMetrics/McGraw-Hill, 1987.Google Scholar
11Hannan, E. L., Bernard, H. R., O'Donnell, J. F., & Kilburn, H.A methodology for targeting hospital cases for quality of care record reviews. American Journal of Public Health, 1989, 79, 430–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Health Care Financing Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program: Changes to the inpatient hospital prospective payment system and fiscal year 1986 rates: Final rule. Federal Register, 09 3, 1985, 50, 35700.Google Scholar
13Health Care Financing Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program: Changes to the DRG classification system. Federal Register, 09 1, 1987, 52, 143–65.Google Scholar
14Health Care Financing Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program: Changes to the inpatient hospital prospective payment system for fiscal year 1990. Federal Register, 09 1, 1989, 54, 36462.Google Scholar
15Horn, S. D.Physician profiling. How it can be misleading and what to do. Consultant, 1987, 27, 86–94.Google ScholarPubMed
16Horn, S. D., & Horn, R. A.The computerized severity index. A new tool for case-mix management. Journal of Medical Systems, 1986, 10, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Hsia, D. S., Krushat, W. M., Fagan, A. B. et al. , Accuracy of diagnostic coding for Medicare patients under the prospective payment system. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 918, 352–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Iezzoni, L. I., Burnside, S., Sickles, L. et al. , Coding of acute myocardial infarction. Clinical and policy implications. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1988, 109, 745–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Iezzoni, L. I., & Moskowitz, M. A.The clinical impact of DRG-based physician reimbursement. Boston, MA: Health Care Research Unit, Boston University Medical Center, Report submitted to the Health Care Financing Administration under cooperative agreement no.18-C-98526/1–01, 1984.Google Scholar
20Iezzoni, L. I., & Moskowitz, M. A.Clinical overlap among medical diagnosis-related groups. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1986, 255, 927–29.Google Scholar
21Iglehart, J. K.Competition and the pursuit of quality: A conversation with Walter McClure. Health Affairs, 1988, 7, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Institute of Medicine. Reliability of hospital discharge abstracts. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1977.Google Scholar
23Institute of Medicine. Reliability of Medicare hospital discharge records. Washington, DC:National Academy of Sciences, 1977.Google Scholar
24Institute of Medicine. Reliability of national hospital discharge survey data. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1980.Google Scholar
25Israel, R. A.The International Classification of Diseases. Two hundred years of development. Public Health Reports, 1978, 93, 150–52.Google Scholar
26Jencks, S. F., Williams, D. K., & Kay, T. L.Assessing hospital-associated deaths from discharge data. The role of length of stay and comorbidities. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 260, 2240–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Kurtzke, J. F.lCD 9: A regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1979, 109, 383–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Lloyd, S. S., & Rissing, J. P.Physician and coding errors in patient records. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1985, 254, 1330–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29McMahon, L. F., & Smits, H. L.Can Medicare prospective payment survive the ICD -9-CM disease classification system? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1986, 104, 562–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Morehead, M. A.Assessing quality of care: Another step forward. American Journal of Public Health, 1989, 79, 415–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Mullin, R. L.Diagnosis-related groups and severity. ICD-9-CM, the real problem. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1985, 254, 1208–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. Medicare prospective payment and the American health care system. Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 129–31.Google Scholar
33Public Health Service-Health Care Financing Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The international classification of diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification, 3rd ed.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989.Google Scholar
34Roos, L. L., Cageorge, S. M., Austen, E., & Lohr, K. N.Using computers to identify complications after surgery. American Journal of Public Health, 1985, 75, 1288–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Roos, L. L., Cageorge, S. M., Roos, N. P., & Danzinger, R.Centralization, certification, and monitoring. Readmissions and complications after surgery. Medical Care, 1986, 24, 1044–66.Google Scholar
36Rutstein, D. D., Berenberg, W., Chalmers, T. C. et al. , Measuring the quality of care: A clinical method. New England Journal of Medicine, 1976, 294, 582–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Schiff, G. D., & Yaacoub, A. S.The diagnostic coding of myocardial infarction (letter). Annals of Internal Medicine, 1989, 110, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Simborg, D. W., DRG creep: A new hospital-acquired disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 1602–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Slee, V. N.The International Classification of Diseases: Ninth Revision (ICD-9). Annals of Internal Medicine, 1978, 88, 424–26.Google Scholar
40Steinwald, B., & Dummit, L. A.Hospital case-mix change: Sicker patients or DRG creep? Health Affairs, 1989, 8, 35–47.Google Scholar
41U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Medicare's prospective payment system: Strategies for evaluating cost, quality, and medical technology OTA-H-262. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985, 195–99.Google Scholar
42Vladeck, B. C.Medicare hospital payment by diagnosis-related groups. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1984, 100, 576–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Wennberg, J. E., Roos, N., Sola, L. et al. , Use of claims data systems to evaluate health care outcomes. Mortality and reoperation following prostatectomy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 257, 933–36.Google Scholar
44Young, W. W. Incorporating severity of illness and comorbidity in case-mix measurement. Health Care Financing Review, 1984 (annual supplement), 23–31.Google Scholar
45Young, W. W., Swinkola, R. B., & Zorn, D. M.The measurement of hospital case mix. Medical Care, 1982, 20, 501–12.Google Scholar