Variation in the Diagnosis of Aspiration Pneumonia and Association with Hospital Pneumonia Outcomes.

RATIONALE: National efforts to compare hospital outcomes for patients with pneumonia may be biased by hospital differences in diagnosis and coding of aspiration pneumonia, a condition that has traditionally been excluded from pneumonia outcome measures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the rationale and impact of including patients with aspiration pneumonia in hospital mortality and readmission measures. METHODS: Using Medicare fee-for-service claims for patients 65 years and older from July 2012 to June 2015, we characterized the proportion of hospitals' patients with pneumonia diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia, calculated hospital-specific risk-standardized rates of 30-day mortality and readmission for patients with pneumonia, analyzed the association between aspiration pneumonia coding frequency and these rates, and recalculated these rates including patients with aspiration pneumonia. RESULTS: A total of 1,101,892 patients from 4,263 hospitals were included in the mortality measure analysis, including 192,814 with aspiration pneumonia. The median proportion of hospitals' patients with pneumonia diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia was 13.6% (10th-90th percentile, 4.2-26%). Hospitals with a higher proportion of patients with aspiration pneumonia had lower risk-standardized mortality rates in the traditional pneumonia measure (12.0% in the lowest coding and 11.0% in the highest coding quintiles) and were far more likely to be categorized as performing better than the national mortality rate; expanding the measure to include patients with aspiration pneumonia attenuated the association between aspiration pneumonia coding rate and hospital mortality. These findings were less pronounced for hospital readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the pneumonia cohorts to include patients with a principal diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia can overcome bias related to variation in hospital coding.

Development and Validation of an Algorithm to Identify Planned Readmissions From Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: It is desirable not to include planned readmissions in readmission measures because they represent deliberate, scheduled care. OBJECTIVES: To develop an algorithm to identify planned readmissions, describe its performance characteristics, and identify improvements. DESIGN: Consensus-driven algorithm development and chart review validation study at 7 acute-care hospitals in 2 health systems. PATIENTS: For development, all discharges qualifying for the publicly reported hospital-wide readmission measure. For validation, all qualifying same-hospital readmissions that were characterized by the algorithm as planned, and a random sampling of same-hospital readmissions that were characterized as unplanned. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated weighted sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the algorithm (version 2.1), compared to gold standard chart review. RESULTS: In consultation with 27 experts, we developed an algorithm that characterizes 7.8% of readmissions as planned. For validation we reviewed 634 readmissions. The weighted sensitivity of the algorithm was 45.1% overall, 50.9% in large teaching centers and 40.2% in smaller community hospitals. The weighted specificity was 95.9%, positive predictive value was 51.6%, and negative predictive value was 94.7%. We identified 4 minor changes to improve algorithm performance. The revised algorithm had a weighted sensitivity 49.8% (57.1% at large hospitals), weighted specificity 96.5%, positive predictive value 58.7%, and negative predictive value 94.5%. Positive predictive value was poor for the 2 most common potentially planned procedures: diagnostic cardiac catheterization (25%) and procedures involving cardiac devices (33%). CONCLUSIONS: An administrative claims-based algorithm to identify planned readmissions is feasible and can facilitate public reporting of primarily unplanned readmissions.