Evidence Hub

Using clinical data to predict high-cost performance coding issues associated with pressure ulcers: a multilevel cohort model

Padula WV, Gibbons RD, Pronovost PJ, Hedeker D, Mishra MK, Makic MB, Bridges JF, Wald HL et al.

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017

21 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) have a mortality rate of 11.6%, are costly to treat, and result in Medicare reimbursement penalties. Medicare codes HAPUs according to Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient-Safety Indicator 3 (PSI-03), but they are sometimes inappropriately coded. The objective is to use electronic health records to predict pressure ulcers and to identify coding issues leading to penalties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated all hospitalized patient electronic medical records at an academic medical center data repository between 2011 and 2014. These data contained patient encounter level demographic variables, diagnoses, prescription drugs, and provider orders. HAPUs were defined by PSI-03: stages III, IV, or unstageable pressure ulcers not present on admission as a secondary diagnosis, excluding cases of paralysis. Random forests reduced data dimensionality. Multilevel logistic regression of patient encounters evaluated associations between covariates and HAPU incidence.

RESULTS: The approach produced a sample population of 21 153 patients with 1549 PSI-03 cases. The greatest odds ratio (OR) of HAPU incidence was among patients diagnosed with spinal cord injury (ICD-9 907.2: OR = 14.3; P < .001), and 71% of spinal cord injuries were not properly coded for paralysis, leading to a PSI-03 flag. Other high ORs included bed confinement (ICD-9 V49.84: OR = 3.1, P < .001) and provider-ordered pre-albumin lab (OR = 2.5, P < .001).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 21 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free