ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Clinical Classification Software Refined (CCSR) is a tool that groups many thousands of International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes into approximately 500 clinically meaningful categories, simplifying analyses. However, CCSR was developed for use in the United States and may not work well with other country-specific ICD-10 coding systems. METHOD: We developed an algorithm for semi-automated matching of Canadian ICD-10 codes (ICD-10-CA) to CCSR categories using discharge diagnoses from adult admissions at 7 hospitals between Apr 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2020, and manually validated the results. We then externally validated our approach using inpatient hospital encounters in Denmark from 2017 to 2018. KEY RESULTS: There were 383,972 Canadian hospital admissions with 5,186 distinct ICD-10-CA diagnosis codes and 1,855,837 Danish encounters with 4,612 ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Only 46.6% of Canadian codes and 49.4% of Danish codes could be directly categorized using the official CCSR tool. Our algorithm facilitated the mapping of 98.5% of all Canadian codes and 97.7% of Danish codes. Validation of our algorithm by clinicians demonstrated excellent accuracy (97.1% and 97.0% in Canadian and Danish data, respectively). Without our algorithm, many common conditions did not match directly to a CCSR category, such as 96.6% of hospital admissions for heart failure. CONCLUSION: The GEMINI CCSR matching algorithm (available as an open-source package at https://github.com/GEMINI-Medicine/gemini-ccsr) improves the categorization of Canadian and Danish ICD-10 codes into clinically coherent categories compared to the original CCSR tool. We expect this approach to generalize well to other countries and enable a wide range of research and quality measurement applications.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are commonly performed in medical inpatients. Limited prior research has examined factors associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission after GI endoscopy in medical inpatients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using routinely-collected clinical and administrative data from all general medicine hospitalizations at five academic hospitals in Toronto, Canada between 2010 and 2020. We describe ICU admission and death within 48 h of GI endoscopy in medical inpatients. We examined adjusted associations of patient and procedural factors with ICU admission or death using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 18 290 medical inpatients who underwent endoscopy, 900 (4.9%) required ICU admission or died within 48 h of endoscopy. Following risk adjustment, ICU admission or death were associated with the following procedural factors: endoscopy on the day of hospital admission (aOR 3.16 [2.38-4.21]) or 1 day after admission (aOR 1.92 [1.51-2.44]) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedures; and the following patient factors: Charlson comorbidity index of two (aOR 1.38 [1.05-1.81]) or three or greater (aOR 1.84 [1.47-2.29]), older age, male sex, lower hemoglobin prior to endoscopy, increased creatinine prior to endoscopy, an admitting diagnosis of liver disease and certain medications (antiplatelet agents and corticosteroids). CONCLUSIONS: ICU admission or death after endoscopy was associated with procedural factors such as EGD and timing of endoscopy, and patient factors indicative of acute illness and greater comorbidity. These findings can contribute to improved triage and monitoring for patients requiring inpatient endoscopy.
Subject(s)
Inpatients , Intensive Care Units , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Hospitalization , Endoscopy, GastrointestinalABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. DESIGN: Multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care. CONCLUSION: Among non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.
