Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) screening for sepsis in surgical mortalities.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is among the leading causes of death in the United States. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality uses International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) billing code screening for the identification of sepsis. We investigated the incidence of sepsis in mortality at our academic medical center through ICD-9-CM screening of billing codes corresponding to sepsis and compared this approach for accuracy using physician chart review as the gold-standard. METHODS: Two hundred forty-three surgical mortalities between January 2012 and January 2013 were reviewed by a Performance Improvement team. All mortalities were screened and evaluated for sepsis using physician chart review and ICD-9-CM codes for sepsis (995.91), severe sepsis (995.92), and septic shock (785.52). RESULTS: Unexpected mortalities were associated with higher rates of sepsis and expected mortalities than anticipated (p<0.0001). A total of 40.6% of patients with sepsis suffered from more than one infection; the most common infectious sources were intra-abdominal (43.5%), blood stream (40.3%), and pulmonary (38.7%) infections. Screening by ICD-9-CM identified sepsis in 23.0% of mortalities, and physician review identified sepsis in 25.5% of mortalities. The sensitivity and specificity of ICD-9-CM screening were 82.3% and 78.3%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 91.1% and 62.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Sepsis is a common concurrent condition in surgical patients who die unexpectedly. Screening by ICD-9-CM for sepsis is accurate in identifying patients with sepsis but misses the identification of all patients with sepsis. The diagnostic accuracy of ICD-9-CM screening for sepsis is currently not adequate for public reporting or benchmarking, and is useful only as a guide for institutional quality improvement.

Validity of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators at an academic medical center.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed Patient Safety Indicators (PSI) to screen for in-hospital complications and patient safety events through International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification coding. The purpose of this study was to validate 10 common surgically related PSIs at our academic medical center and investigate the causes for inaccuracies. We reviewed patient records between October 2011 and September 2012 at our urban academic medical center for 10 common surgically related PSIs. The records were reviewed for incorrectly identified PSIs and a subset was further reviewed for the contributing factors. There were 93,169 charts analyzed for PSIs and 358 PSIs were identified (3.84 per 1000 cases). The overall positive predictive value (PPV) was 83 per cent (95% confidence interval 79 to -86%). The lowest PPVs were associated with catheter-related bloodstream infections (67%), postoperative respiratory failure (71%), and pressure ulcers (79%). The most common contributing factors for incorrect PSIs were coding errors (30%), documentation errors (19%), and insufficient criteria for PSI in the chart (16%). We conclude that the validity of PSIs is low and could be improved by increased education for clinicians and coders. In their current form, PSIs remain suboptimal for widespread use in public reporting and pay-for-performance evaluation.