Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 3135453

Validity and reliability issues in alternative patient classification systems.

Abstract

The validity and reliability issues involved in using alternative patient classification systems were reviewed. Disease Staging and Patient Management Categories (PMCs) were applied separately and in conjunction with DRGs to three populations of patients drawn from a nine-hospital community data base. Data were examined with analyses that were as consistent as possible with hospital-based reviews of resource utilization. Questions focused on content and context validity (partially assessable by homogeneity), general and statistical reliability (measured by variance reduction), gaming, and cost. Ordinal stratifications were inconsistently produced, and improvement to DRGs' homogeneity was generally negligible. When used alone, staging produced only half the variance reduction of DRGs. PMCs, when used alone, appeared to produce sizeable variance reductions that may have been due to the large number of one- and two-case categories produced. Staging had category overlap, was expensive, and was unidimensional and subject to manipulation. PMCs had potentially serious logic problems, and both were inadequately documented. Neither system was considered appropriate for all needs, but each might work adequately under well-defined and limited conditions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Charbonneau, C Ostrowski, E T Poehner, P Lindsay, T L Panniers, P Houghton, J Albright. 1988. Validity and reliability issues in alternative patient classification systems.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198808000-00006

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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↗