Search

The quality of clinical data held in administrative databases is crucial for appropriate funding of health care services. As Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) continue to play an important role in hospital payment mechanisms, proper coding of diagnoses and procedures is of most concern. This study used an administrative, nationwide Portuguese inpatient database to characterize and assess coding patterns in burn-related hospitalization data, with a special focus on identifying suspected miscoding practices that could be affecting APR-DRG (All-Patient Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups) classification. Using coded clinical data of 4,182 burn-related admissions occurred between 2011 and 2015, we compared APR-DRG and Severity of Illness (SOI) frequencies between hospitals with a burn unit in Portugal. The frequencies of individual diagnosis and procedure codes among episodes grouped within the same APR-DRG were also compared. Hospitals with a burn unit in Portugal differed significantly in the frequencies of APR-DRGs 842 and 844. Proper coding of extensive third-degree burns might be related with the observed discrepant frequencies of APR-DRGs across the evaluated hospitals. Facilities also differed significantly concerning the proportions of SOI levels in certain APR-DRGs. Significant differences in reporting certain comorbidities and common hospital procedures, especially non-operating room procedures, might have influenced the observed discrepancies in SOI levels. Moreover, there seems to be a lack of standard in coding debridement procedures among the evaluated hospitals. Overall, we found some suspected coding patterns that could potentially be associated with miscoding practices impacting APR-DRG classification. Those findings could not only be relevant for planning future audit processes and improving medical coding practices, but also for discussing quality and desirable features of burn-related clinical data, keeping in mind their use for other purposes beyond DRG grouping, namely clinical and health care services research, as well as health care management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Portugal, trained physicians undertake the clinical coding process, which serves as the basis for hospital reimbursement systems. In 2017, the classification version used for coding of diagnoses and procedures for hospital morbidity changed from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification/Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS).To assess the perceptions of medical coders on the transition of the clinical coding process from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS in terms of its impact on data quality, as well as the major differences, advantages, and problems they faced.We conducted an observational study using a web-based survey submitted to medical coders in Portugal. Survey questions were based on a literature review and from previous focus group studies.A total of 103 responses were obtained from medical coders with experience in the two versions of the classification system (i.e. ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS). Of these, 82 (79.6%) medical coders preferred the latest version and 76 (73.8%) considered that ICD-10-CM/PCS guaranteed higher quality of the coded data. However, more than half of the respondents (N = 61; 59.2%) believed that more time for the coding process for each episode was needed.Quality of clinical coded data is one of the major priorities that must be ensured. According to the medical coders, the use of ICD-10-CM/PCS appeared to achieve higher quality coded data, but also increased the effort.According to medical coders, the change off classification systems should improve the quality of coded data. Nevertheless, the extra time invested in this process might also pose a problem in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]