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, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment