Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes ; 14(3): e006570, 2021 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33653116

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Among Medicare value-based payment programs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program uses International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes to identify the program denominator, while the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced program uses diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). The extent to which these programs target similar patients, whether they target the intended population (type 1 myocardial infarction), and whether outcomes are comparable between cohorts is not known. METHODS: In a retrospective study of 2176 patients hospitalized in an integrated health system, a cohort of patients assigned a principal ICD-10 diagnosis of AMI and a cohort of patients assigned an AMI DRG were compared according to patient-level agreement and outcomes such as mortality and readmission. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred thirty-five patients were included in the ICD-10 cohort compared with 662 patients in the DRG cohort. Only 421 patients were included in both AMI cohorts (19.3% agreement). DRG cohort patients were older (70 versus 65 years, P<0.001), more often female (48% versus 30%, P<0.001), and had higher rates of heart failure (52% versus 33%, P<0.001) and kidney disease (42% versus 25%, P<0.001). Comparing outcomes, the DRG cohort had significantly higher unadjusted rates of 30-day mortality (6.6% versus 2.5%, P<0.001), 1-year mortality (21% versus 8%, P<0.001), and 90-day readmission (26% versus 19%, P=0.006) than the ICD-10 cohort. Two observations help explain these differences: 61% of ICD-10 cohort patients were assigned procedural DRGs for revascularization instead of an AMI DRG, and type 1 myocardial infarction patients made up a smaller proportion of the DRG cohort (34%) than the ICD-10 cohort (78%). CONCLUSIONS: The method used to identify denominators for value-based payment programs has important implications for the patient characteristics and outcomes of the populations. As national and local quality initiatives mature, an emphasis on ICD-10 codes to define AMI cohorts would better represent type 1 myocardial infarction patients.


Asunto(s)
Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud , Infarto del Miocardio , Anciano , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina , Grupos Diagnósticos Relacionados , Femenino , Humanos , Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades , Masculino , Medicare , Persona de Mediana Edad , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico , Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Readmisión del Paciente , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...