Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2498584

Practice pattern variation between two medical schools.

K N Gillespie·J C Romeis·K S Virgo·J W Fletcher·A Elixhauser
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This study examined physician test-ordering behavior at a large urban Veterans Administration Medical Center staffed by two medical schools. Patients are assigned randomly to the two schools' wards, which operate independently of each other. The medical records of 119 patients, admitted during a 5-month period, were abstracted for data on the process and outcomes of medical care. Only one statistically significant difference in diagnostic testing practices was revealed by the observation that 12% of patients on one service received another abdominal film, while no patients on the other service did. The implications of studies such as this for small-area analysis are discussed. If variation in the utilization of health services is observed in a geographic region, then a study of physician behavior at a single facility may help to identify the reason for the variation.

Explore related subjects

Diagnosis-Related GroupsDiagnostic ServicesHospitals, VeteransHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Schools, MedicalClinical TrialComparative StudyJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K N Gillespie, J C Romeis, K S Virgo, J W Fletcher, A Elixhauser. 1989. Practice pattern variation between two medical schools.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198905000-00008

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10.

OBJECTIVE: Reliability of diagnoses coding is essential for the use of routine data in a national health care system. The present investigation compares reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 between three groups of coding subjects. METHOD: One hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists, 27 medical managers from hospitals 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists 12 discharge letters. Agreement in principal diagnosis was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and the fraction of coincidences over the number of pairs, agreement for the full set of diagnoses with a previously developed measure p(om). RESULTS: Kappa values were fair (managers) or moderate (coders) for terminal codes with 0.27 and 0.42 (agreement 29.2% versus 46.8%), substantial for the chapter level with 0.71 and 0.72 (agreement 78.3% versus 80.8%). p(om) was lower for the full set of diagnoses than for principal diagnoses, for example in case of managers with 0.21 versus 0.29 for terminal codes. Best results were achieved by students coding diagnoses lists. In summary, the results are remarkably lower than in earlier publications. CONCLUSION: The refinement of the ICD-10 accompanied by innumerous coding rules has established a complex environment that leads to significant uncertainties even for experts. Use of coded data for quality management, health care financing, and health care policy requires a remarkable simplification of ICD-10 to receive a valid image of health care reality.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗