drg as a quality indicator
DESCRIPTION
DRG as a quality indicator. 4th Nordic Casemix Conference 3-4th June 2010 Paasitorni, Helsinki, Finland Lisbeth Serdén National Board of Health and Welfare. General. There are other aspects of quality in health care then treatment policy and medical outcomes - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
DRG as a quality indicatorDRG as a quality indicator
4th Nordic Casemix Conference
3-4th June 2010Paasitorni, Helsinki, Finland
Lisbeth Serdén
National Board of Health and Welfare
![Page 2: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
GeneralGeneral
• There are other aspects of quality in health care then treatment policy and medical outcomes
• DRG systems contribution to quality– by transparency in health care data– facilitate benchmarking– facilitate quality comparisons– increases the productivity– leads to improvement in coding– automatically control on data quality
![Page 3: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Transparency Transparency and benchmarkingand benchmarking
• DRG contribute to transparency which leads to improvement in quality. Better description of hospital treatments increases the transparency of care and the possibility to compare and standardise the care provided
• DRG benchmarking improves quality. Example ‘Quality and Efficiency in Swedish Health Care. http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2010/2010-4-37 http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2009/2009-126-144
![Page 4: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Quality comparisonsQuality comparisons
• Analyses on outliers in the DRG-system improve quality. Swedish analyses on outliers has contributed to a higher knowledge about why patients end up as outliers and how to avoid these situations
• Analyses on health care processesEfficiency in health care – cardiac care
![Page 5: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Improvement in codingImprovement in coding
• Introduction of DRG-systems leads to improvement in coding. Just the use of DRG-systems makes the users improve in coding
• At least in Sweden the use of DRG has lead to widespread contribution on education in coding among the medical secretaries
• More codes in the health care databases leads to a better description on health care
• Education have impact on coding quality
![Page 6: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Increases productivityIncreases productivity
• Introduction of DRG-systems increase the productivity which leads to improvement in access which is another aspect of quality
• A good example is when Stockholm County Council implemented DRG in the beginning of 1990ths. There was a high increase in productivity the first two years that later turned to a weak decrease in productivity but the productivity stayed on a higher level.
![Page 7: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DRG in reimbursement systems DRG in reimbursement systems supports qualitysupports quality
• DRG gives the possibility as a part of reimbursement systems to reward good quality with higher or extra payment
![Page 8: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
International comparisonsInternational comparisons
• DRG is a mutual language which makes it possible to compare health care internationally
• EuroDRG project– Thematic chapter on DRGs and quality– Analyses and comparisons on Appendectomy
![Page 9: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Swedish quality outcomes on DRGSwedish quality outcomes on DRG
• It is possible to measure data quality in health care in other ways then audits on case records
• Studies on health care databases supply you with
lots of information about the care provided and differences in health care consumption
• Of course there is audits on case records performed in Sweden too
![Page 10: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Cost per DRG point –specialised Cost per DRG point –specialised medical care 2008medical care 2008
![Page 11: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Cost per DRG point –specialised Cost per DRG point –specialised medical caremedical care
• Cost per DRG weighted case for the care that inhabitants of each region received – cost per consumed DRG point
• This is an indicator of healthcare productivity i.e., performance in relation to costs
• The County Council of Kalmar have the highest productivity, 10 percent over average
![Page 12: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Diagnoses per case 2008Diagnoses per case 2008
![Page 13: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Diagnoses per case in SwedenDiagnoses per case in Sweden
• Successively increasing• 1997 there where 1.7 diagnoses per case• 2008 there where 2.6 diagnoses per case• From 2 to 3.3 diagnoses per case, regional level• The more information on diagnoses there are in
the health care databases the more information you get
![Page 14: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
The DRG system built-in logic on The DRG system built-in logic on incorrect coding, DRG 468, DRG 469, DRG incorrect coding, DRG 468, DRG 469, DRG 470 and DRG 477470 and DRG 477
![Page 15: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The DRG system built-in logic on The DRG system built-in logic on incorrect codingincorrect coding
• In NordDRG– DRG 468 Rare or incorrect combination of diagnosis and
extensive procedure– DRG 469 Unspecified or invalid discharge information (until 2008)– DRG 470 Ungroupable– DRG 477 Rare or incorrect combination of diagnosis and other
procedure
• Indicator on incorrect coding• Regional differences between 0.2 to 2.8 percent• The main reason is ‘primary diagnosis is missing’
![Page 16: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Primary diagnosis Primary diagnosis
• Regional differences in choosing code for primary diagnosis
• Differences depending on– mortality?– coding habits?– influence from DRG?
• Some examples
![Page 17: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
DRG 140 Angina pectoris compared DRG 140 Angina pectoris compared to DRG 143 Chest pain, 2008to DRG 143 Chest pain, 2008
![Page 18: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
DRG 140 Angina pectoris compared DRG 140 Angina pectoris compared to DRG 143 Chest painto DRG 143 Chest pain
• Definition on Angina pectoris and Chest pain in a State of the Art document from The National Board of Health and Welfare in 1998
• 42 percent Angina pectoris 2001
• 25 percent Angina pectoris 2008
![Page 19: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
DRG 88 Chronic obstructive pulmonary DRG 88 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared to DRG 96 and DRG 97 disease compared to DRG 96 and DRG 97 Bronchitis & asthma, age > 17 w cc/wo ccBronchitis & asthma, age > 17 w cc/wo cc
![Page 20: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
DRG 88 Chronic obstructive pulmonary DRG 88 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared to DRG 96 and DRG 97 disease compared to DRG 96 and DRG 97 Bronchitis & asthma, age > 17 w cc/wo ccBronchitis & asthma, age > 17 w cc/wo cc
• In 2008 the relationship between DRG 88 and DRG 96 and 97 was 75 to 25 percent
• Decreasing cases in inpatient care
![Page 21: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
DRGs with complication out of DRGs DRGs with complication out of DRGs with and without complicationwith and without complication
![Page 22: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
DRGs with complicationDRGs with complication
• Regional difference is significant• Regional difference between 20 to 35 percent • Regions with a long tradition on DRGs have a
higher share DRGs with complication. Except some regions, Västerbotten and Jönköping
• Increasing share of complicated DRGs
![Page 23: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
DRG 210 Hip & femur procedures except DRG 210 Hip & femur procedures except major joint, age > 17, w cc compared to major joint, age > 17, w cc compared to DRG 211 wo ccDRG 211 wo cc
![Page 24: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
DRG 210 Hip & femur procedures except DRG 210 Hip & femur procedures except major joint, age > 17, w cc compared to major joint, age > 17, w cc compared to DRG 211 wo ccDRG 211 wo cc• There was an strong increase from 48 to 55
percent Hip & femur procedures w cc between 2007 and 2008
• Regional difference is significant• Highest share in Stockholm with 69 percent
– Abuse in coding!?
• Lowest share in County Council of Jämtland with12 percent
![Page 25: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
DRG 14A Stroke w cc compared to DRG 14A Stroke w cc compared to DRG 14B Stroke wo ccDRG 14B Stroke wo cc
![Page 26: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
DRG 14A Stroke w cc compared to DRG 14A Stroke w cc compared to DRG 14B Stroke wo ccDRG 14B Stroke wo cc
• Increasing share of complicated DRGs in Stroke
• There was an increase from 42 percent to 46 percent between 2007 and 2008
• Regions with high share of cases w cc have a strong connection to regions with a long tradition with DRG
![Page 27: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Conclusion Conclusion Swedish quality outcomes on DRGSwedish quality outcomes on DRG
• A yearly report on quality outcomes are published
• There is a great demand about more information on these issues
• Improvement in data quality
![Page 28: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
ConclusionsConclusions
• DRG provides an opportunity to measure and improve quality that was not possible before
– increases the awareness of quality– increases transparency about hospital activities– improvement in access– improvement in coding diagnoses– facilitates analyses on quality
![Page 29: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Automatically control on qualityAutomatically control on quality
• DRG systems automatically control on quality with respect to DRGs that indicate incorrect coding
• In NordDRG– DRG 468 Rare or incorrect combination of diagnosis and
extensive procedure– DRG 469 Unspecified or invalid discharge information (until 2008)– DRG 470 Ungroupable– DRG 477 Rare or incorrect combination of diagnosis and other
procedure
![Page 30: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
DRG 14A Stroke w cc and DRG 14B DRG 14A Stroke w cc and DRG 14B Stroke wo cc compared to DRG 15 Stroke wo cc compared to DRG 15 TIATIA
![Page 31: DRG as a quality indicator](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081503/568149c0550346895db6f423/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
DRG 14A Stroke w cc and DRG 14B DRG 14A Stroke w cc and DRG 14B Stroke wo cc compared to DRG 15 Stroke wo cc compared to DRG 15 TIATIA• Definition on Specific cerebrovascular disorders
except TIA, Stroke, and Transient ischemic attac & precerebral occlusions, TIA, in a State of the Art document from The National Board of Health and Welfare in 1996
• 16 percent TIA 2001
• 19 percent TIA 2008