Comparison of wound surface area measurements obtained using clinically validated artificial intelligence-based technology versus manual methods and the effect of measurement method on debridement code reimbursement cost.
Misael C Alonso, Heba Tallah Mohammed, Robert D Fraser, J. L. Ramírez García Luna, David Mannion
{"title":"Comparison of wound surface area measurements obtained using clinically validated artificial intelligence-based technology versus manual methods and the effect of measurement method on debridement code reimbursement cost.","authors":"Misael C Alonso, Heba Tallah Mohammed, Robert D Fraser, J. L. Ramírez García Luna, David Mannion","doi":"10.25270/wnds/23031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND Evidence shows that ongoing accurate wound assessments using valid and reliable measurement methods is essential to effective wound monitoring and better wound care management. Relying on subjective interpretation in measuring wound dimensions and assuming a rectilinear shape of all wounds renders an inconsistent and inaccurate wound area measurement. OBJECTIVE The authors investigated the discrepancy in wound area measurements using a DWMS versus TPR methods and compared debridement codes submitted for reimbursement by assessment method. METHODS The width and length of 177 wounds in 56 patients were measured at an outpatient clinic in the United States using the TPR method (width × length formula) and a DWMS (traced wound dimensions). The maximal allowable payment for debridement was calculated for both methods using the reported CPT codes based on each 20-cm2 estimated surface area. RESULTS The average wound surface area was significantly higher with the TPR method than with the DWMS (20.20 and 12.81, respectively; P = .025). For patients with dark skin tones, ill-defined wound edges, irregular wound shapes, unhealthy tissues, and the presence of necrotic tissues, the use of the DWMS resulted in significantly lower mean differences in wound area measurements of 14.4 cm2 (P < .008), 8.2 cm2 (P = .040), 6.8 cm2 (P = .045), 13.1 cm2 (P = .036), and 7.6 cm2 (P = .043), respectively, compared with the TPR method. Use of the DWMS for wound surface area measurement resulted in a 10.6% lower reimbursement amount for debridement, with 82 fewer submitted codes, compared with the TPR method. CONCLUSIONS Compared with the DWMS, TPR measurements overestimated wound area more than 36.6%. This overestimation was associated with dark skin tones and wounds with irregular edges, irregular shapes, and necrotic tissue.","PeriodicalId":23752,"journal":{"name":"Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice","volume":"197 1","pages":"E330-E338"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/wnds/23031","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence shows that ongoing accurate wound assessments using valid and reliable measurement methods is essential to effective wound monitoring and better wound care management. Relying on subjective interpretation in measuring wound dimensions and assuming a rectilinear shape of all wounds renders an inconsistent and inaccurate wound area measurement. OBJECTIVE The authors investigated the discrepancy in wound area measurements using a DWMS versus TPR methods and compared debridement codes submitted for reimbursement by assessment method. METHODS The width and length of 177 wounds in 56 patients were measured at an outpatient clinic in the United States using the TPR method (width × length formula) and a DWMS (traced wound dimensions). The maximal allowable payment for debridement was calculated for both methods using the reported CPT codes based on each 20-cm2 estimated surface area. RESULTS The average wound surface area was significantly higher with the TPR method than with the DWMS (20.20 and 12.81, respectively; P = .025). For patients with dark skin tones, ill-defined wound edges, irregular wound shapes, unhealthy tissues, and the presence of necrotic tissues, the use of the DWMS resulted in significantly lower mean differences in wound area measurements of 14.4 cm2 (P < .008), 8.2 cm2 (P = .040), 6.8 cm2 (P = .045), 13.1 cm2 (P = .036), and 7.6 cm2 (P = .043), respectively, compared with the TPR method. Use of the DWMS for wound surface area measurement resulted in a 10.6% lower reimbursement amount for debridement, with 82 fewer submitted codes, compared with the TPR method. CONCLUSIONS Compared with the DWMS, TPR measurements overestimated wound area more than 36.6%. This overestimation was associated with dark skin tones and wounds with irregular edges, irregular shapes, and necrotic tissue.
期刊介绍:
Wounds is the most widely read, peer-reviewed journal focusing on wound care and wound research. The information disseminated to our readers includes valuable research and commentaries on tissue repair and regeneration, biology and biochemistry of wound healing, and clinical management of various wound etiologies.
Our multidisciplinary readership consists of dermatologists, general surgeons, plastic surgeons, vascular surgeons, internal medicine/family practitioners, podiatrists, gerontologists, researchers in industry or academia (PhDs), orthopedic surgeons, infectious disease physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. These practitioners must be well equipped to deal with a myriad of chronic wound conditions affecting their patients including vascular disease, diabetes, obesity, dermatological disorders, and more.
Whether dealing with a traumatic wound, a surgical or non-skin wound, a burn injury, or a diabetic foot ulcer, wound care professionals turn to Wounds for the latest in research and practice in this ever-growing field of medicine.