Clinical validity and relevance of accidental puncture or laceration as a patient safety indicator for children

Improving Mortality Attribution in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Mortality attribution can have significant implications for reimbursement, hospital/department rankings, and perceptions of safety. This work seeks to compare the accuracy of externally assigned diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based service line mortality attribution in otolaryngology to an internal review process that assigns mortality to the teams that cared for a patient during hospitalization.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Mortality events at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) from 2012 to 2018 were compared. Included events were assigned to the otolaryngology service line (OSL) via the following methods: an external agency (Vizient) using DRG, utilization management assignment based on the service that provided care at admission (admission service), discharge (discharge service), or throughout hospitalization (major service line), or through the internal VUMC mortality review committee. Internal review was considered the standard for comparison.

RESULTS

Of the 28 mortality events assigned to OSL by the DRG-based external method, nine (32%) were actually attributable to OSL. Of the 23 total mortality events attributable to OSL at our institution, external DRG-based review captured nine (39%). The designation of major service during hospitalization was correct 95% of the time and captured 87% of mortality events. Differences between external and internal attribution methods were statistically significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

DRG-based models are frequently utilized but can be inaccurate when attributing mortality for an individual otolaryngology department. Otolaryngology mortalities appear to be captured and assigned more accurately by assigning deaths to the service that renders the majority of care during hospitalization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 131:E1805-E1810, 2021.

Impact of a Clinical Documentation Integrity Program on Severity of Illness of Expired Patients

BACKGROUND

As payment models continue to move toward value-driven care, the quality of documentation has become more important than ever. Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) programs can aid in the documentation of diagnoses that are specific and consistent throughout the medical record, which leads to accurate code assignment, better understanding of patient complexity, and improved facility reimbursement.

METHODS

An interrupted time series analysis was conducted by using a segmented regression model to estimate the impact of our hospital's CDI program on perceived patient complexity using severity of illness stratification, observed to expected mortality ratio and case-mix index. Patients who died during the admission were chosen to limit our analysis to patients with the highest severity of illness.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients who had died while inpatient at our 400 bed children's hospital were included. There was a 15.7% increase in patients who were final coded with the highest level of severity of illness after our CDI program launched compared with those patients admitted before program inception. The hospital case-mix index for inpatient cases increased 25% from 2011 to 2017. There was a 44% decrease in the observed to expected mortality ratio.

DISCUSSION

A CDI program can have a significant impact, as evidenced by our ability to show complexity gains on some of the sickest patients by supporting documentation of precise, accurate diagnoses. In turn, this may allow for better understanding of the complexity of our patient population and support appropriate reimbursement and payer contract negotiations.