[Classification of severely injured patients in the G-DRG System 2008]

[Is polytrauma treatment in deficit in the aG-DRG system?]

BACKGROUND

The interdisciplinary care of severely injured patients is staff and resource intensive. Since the introduction of the G‑DRG system in Germany in 2003, most studies have identified a financial deficit in the care of severely injured patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of the new aG-DRG system introduced in 2020 on cost recovery in the treatment of severely injured patients. For the first time, the costs for organization, certification and documentation as well as the costs for non-seriously injured shock room patients were included.

METHODS

All patients who were treated in the surgical shock room of the emergency department of the Leipzig University Hospital in 2017 were included. For the analysis, the cost model according to Pape et al. was extended by the module organization, documentation and certification and for the first time the costs for overtriaged patients were considered. A cost calculation was performed for the years 2017-2020 as well a comparison with the respective earnings.

RESULTS

A total of 834 patients were treated in the shock room and 258 severely injured patients were divided into 3 groups: ISS 9-15 + ICU (n 72; ∅ ISS 11.9; costs per patient 14,715 €),ISS ≥ 16 (n 186; ∅ ISS 27.7; costs per patient 30,718 €) and DRG polytrauma (n 59; ∅ ISS 32.4; costs per patient 26,102 €).

CONCLUSION

Polytrauma care under the aG-DRG 2020 is in deficit. Overall, in 2020 a deficit of 5858 € per severely injured patient resulted.

[Description of the severely injured in the DRG system: is treatment of the severely injured still affordable?]

BACKGROUND

Due to the heterogeneity of severely injured patients (multiple trauma) it is difficult to assign them to homogeneic diagnosis-related groups (DRG). In recent years this has led to a systematic underfunding in the German reimbursement system (G-DRG) for cases of multiply injured patients. This project aimed to improve the reimbursement by modifying the case allocation algorithms of multiply injured patients within the G-DRG system.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of standardized G-DRG data according to §21 of the Hospital Reimbursement Act (§ 21 KHEntgG) including case-related cost data from 3,362 critically injured patients from 2007 and 2008 from 10 university hospitals and 7 large municipal hospitals was carried out. For 1,241 cases complementary detailed information was available from the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society to monitor the case allocation of multiply injured patients within the G-DRG system. Analysis of coding and grouping, performance of case allocation and the homogeneity of costs in the G-DRG versions 2008-2012 was carried out.

RESULTS

The results showed systematic underfunding of trauma patients in the G-DRG version 2008 but adequate cost covering in the majority of cases with the G-DRG versions 2011 and 2012. Cost coverage was foundfor multiply injured patients from the clinical viewpoint who were identified as multiple trauma by the G-DRG system. Some of the overfunded trauma patients had high intensive care costs. Also there was underfunding for multiple injured patients not identified as such in the G-DRG system.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific modifications of the G-DRG allocation structures could increase the appropriateness of reimbursement of multiply injured patients. Data-based analysis is an essential prerequisite for a constructive development of the G-DRG system and a necessary tool for the active participation of medical specialist societies.

Multiple blunt trauma after suicidal attempt: an analysis of 4,754 multiple severely injured patients

PURPOSE

The suicidal attempt is a significant cause for multiple severe injuries in Germany. The aim of the present study was to obtain information regarding injury patterns, clinical treatment, and outcome.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of 4,754 patients of the Trauma Registry of the German Trauma Society (1993-2007) with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥9 after a suicidal jump from a height (SUICIDE) and after an accidental fall from a height (ACCIDENT).

RESULTS

Comparing the data of 3,682 patients with accidental fall versus those with intentional fall/jump (n = 1,072), we found that male patients were predominant in the ACCIDENT group (84.9 vs. 52.2%). The SUICIDE group had more severe injuries (ISS: 31.8 vs. 26.4). The ACCIDENT group suffered more severe head injuries (51.1 vs. 36.6%). Mortality (21.4 vs. 14.2%), length of stay in hospital (29.5 vs. 26.5 days), and costs (€34,833 vs. €24,701) were higher in the SUICIDE group.

CONCLUSIONS

Falls from a height are a common cause of injury among severely injured patients. The resulting trauma composes a particular form of blunt trauma with severe and multiple injuries, which depends on the fact of whether the free fall from a height was caused by an accident or as a result of a suicidal attempt. Taking the injury severity into consideration, there is no difference in the prognosis of the patients.

[Comparison of early total care (ETC) and damage control orthopedics (DCO) in the treatment of multiple trauma with femoral shaft fractures: benefit and costs]

INTRODUCTION

Femoral fractures are common injuries in multiple trauma patients. The treatment concept of damage control orthopedics (DCO) is in competition with the concept of early total care (ETC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective study (2003-2007) 73 multiple trauma patients with femoral shaft fractures were included. The cohort was subdivided according to the Injury Severity Score (ISS) (16-24, 25-39 and more than 40) and treatment strategy (ETC versus DCO). Patients were analyzed for outcome and cost aspects.

RESULTS

In the patient group with an ISS 16-24 ventilation time and intensive care treatment were longer after DCO treatment, overall costs and deficient cost cover were higher in the DCO group. In the patient group with an ISS 25-39 cost aspects showed a higher cover deficient in the DCO group.

CONCLUSION

From an economic point of view the cost deficits for the ETC group were lower than in the DCO group. The treatment strategy should be selected by the pattern of injuries. The costs should be addressed by the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (INEK).

[The economic challenges of polytrauma care]

Following the introduction of DRGs ("diagnosis-related groups") in Germany, reimbursements changed from a per diem rate to a flat charge per patient. DRGs are defined by the German Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK, Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus) along with the respective reimbursement. The revenues are set according to the diagnoses and procedures. In complex cases like serious injury this applies for the average diagnoses and procedures. As a result, several groups reported costs of polytrauma care as high as 70,000 euro with losses as high as 20,000 euro. In the USA, a similar constellation has lead to the closure of trauma centers. The main reasons for the financial deficit are heterogeneity of polytrauma patients and contingency costs. Both are difficult to transfer to a case-based compensation system. Since the German DRG system was designed to learn during introduction, there were adjustments to reimbursements for polytrauma care in the initial phase. However, in recent years, no further improvements in the care of severely injured patients have been seen. The deficit per seriously injured patient currently runs at approx. 5000 euro. A renewed joint effort is required in order to avoid an economy-related reduction in quality of care.