The Mortality Review Committee: a novel and scalable approach to reducing inpatient mortality.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of reducing inpatient mortality, little has been reported about establishing a hospitalwide, systematic process to review and address inpatient deaths. In 2006 the University of Pennsylvania Health System's Mortality Review Committee was established and charged with reducing inpatient mortality as measured by the mortality index--observed/expected mortality. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2012, through interdisciplinary meetings and analysis of administrative data and chart reviews, the Mortality Review Committee identified a number of opportunities for improvement in the quality of patient care. Several programmatic interventions, such as those aimed at improving sepsis and delirium recognition and management, were initiated through the committee. RESULTS: During the committee's first six years of activity, the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) mortality index decreased from 1.08 to 0.53, with observed mortality decreasing from 2.45% to 1.62%. Interventions aimed at improving sepsis management implemented between 2007 and 2008 were associated with increases in severe sepsis survival from 40% to 56% and septic shock survival from 42% to 54%. The mortality index for sepsis decreased from 2.45 to 0.88. Efforts aimed at improving delirium management implemented between 2008 and 2009 were associated with an increase in the proportion of patients receiving a "timely" intervention from 18% to 57% and with a twofold increase in the percentage of patients discharged to home. DISCUSSION: The establishment of a mortality review committee was associated with a significant reduction in the mortality index. Keys to success include interdisciplinary membership, partnerships with local providers, and a multipronged approach to identifying important clinical opportunities and to implementing effective interventions.

Severe sepsis cohorts derived from claims-based strategies appear to be biased toward a more severely ill patient population.

OBJECTIVE: The epidemiology of severe sepsis is derived from administrative databases that rely on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes to select cases. We compared the sensitivity of two code abstraction methods in identifying severe sepsis cases using a severe sepsis registry. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care, Academic, University Hospital. PATIENTS: One thousand seven hundred thirty-five patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion identified as severe sepsis using two code abstraction methods: 1) the new specific ICD-9 codes for severe sepsis and septic shock, and 2) a validated method requiring two ICD-9 codes for infection and end-organ dysfunction. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine sociodemographics and clinical characteristics associated with documentation and coding accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: The strategy combining a code for infection and end-organ dysfunction was more sensitive in identifying cases than the method requiring specific ICD-9 codes for severe sepsis or septic shock (47% vs. 21%). Elevated serum lactate level (p<0.001), ICU admission (p<0.001), presence of shock (p<0.001), bacteremia as the source of sepsis (p=0.02), and increased Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (p<0.001) were independently associated with being appropriately documented and coded. The 28-day mortality was significantly higher in those who were accurately documented/coded (41%, compared with 14% in those who were not, p<0.001), reflective of a more severe presentation on admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted with severe sepsis and septic shock were incompletely documented and under-coded, using either ICD-9 code abstracting method. Documentation of subsequent coding of severe sepsis was more common in more severely ill patients. These findings are important when evaluating current national estimates and when interpreting epidemiologic studies of severe sepsis as cohorts derived from claims-based strategies appear to be biased toward a more severely ill patient population.

Documentation tips for pulmonary medicine: implications for the inpatient setting.

Clinical documentation improvement is an important aspect to achieve top performance. Clinical documentation in a patient's record includes any and all documentation that relates to the care of the patient during the patient's stay or encounter at the hospital. Documentation is key to accurate clinical coding, validating length of stay, resource utilization, physician profiling, case management, severity of illness, risk of mortality, quality management, risk management, clinical outcomes, critical pathways, regulatory compliance, Joint Commission accreditation, managed care, and reimbursement. Good documentation minimizes coding errors, reduces claim denials, and optimizes reimbursement. Implementing quality improvement strategies that make documentation and coding an organizational priority can positively influence operations, services, and revenue. Other external and internal coding audits show that the cause of improper coding is due to lack of proper physician documentation to support reimbursement at the appropriate level. The purpose of this article is to provide tips for documenting pulmonary diagnoses that not only would ensure appropriate reimbursement but also would accurately represent the severity of a patient's condition.