Cause of death certificates in nursing homes: Does quality matter? A retrospective review from two counties in Norway.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-26 DOI:10.1177/14034948231187512
Hanna M Eng, Christian L Ellingsen, Anne G Pedersen, G Cecilie Alfsen
{"title":"Cause of death certificates in nursing homes: Does quality matter? A retrospective review from two counties in Norway.","authors":"Hanna M Eng, Christian L Ellingsen, Anne G Pedersen, G Cecilie Alfsen","doi":"10.1177/14034948231187512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>One half of Norwegians die in nursing homes, where death certificates (DCs) are completed by two types of physicians: in-house physicians or physicians on call. The aims of this study were to examine differences in the quality of DCs due to type of physician and to uncover possible implications of errors for the public statistics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>DCs from the year 2013 from nursing homes in the catchment area of Akershus University Hospital were examined with regard to logical deficiencies, garbage code diagnoses and type of certifying physician. In one third of cases, the registered causes of death were compared to information in the medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 873 DCs from 24 nursing homes were evaluated. Physicians on call certified 46% of all deaths. Logical deficiencies were found in 34% of all DCs and were more common in DCs from physicians on call. Garbage code diagnoses were used in every third DC, with 'sudden death' or 'cause of death unknown' preferred by physicians on call and 'unspecified pneumonia' preferred by in-house physicians. Comparisons against medical records uncovered missing information in 49% and 35% of DCs from physicians on call and in-house physicians, respectively. A dementia diagnosis was frequently overlooked by both physician types. Garbage code diagnoses were more common in DCs with missing information from medical records.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>\n <b>Error rates in DCs in nursing homes in Norway are high. The results raise concerns about the validity of public cause of death statistics.</b>\n </p>","PeriodicalId":49568,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11308255/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948231187512","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: One half of Norwegians die in nursing homes, where death certificates (DCs) are completed by two types of physicians: in-house physicians or physicians on call. The aims of this study were to examine differences in the quality of DCs due to type of physician and to uncover possible implications of errors for the public statistics.

Methods: DCs from the year 2013 from nursing homes in the catchment area of Akershus University Hospital were examined with regard to logical deficiencies, garbage code diagnoses and type of certifying physician. In one third of cases, the registered causes of death were compared to information in the medical records.

Results: A total of 873 DCs from 24 nursing homes were evaluated. Physicians on call certified 46% of all deaths. Logical deficiencies were found in 34% of all DCs and were more common in DCs from physicians on call. Garbage code diagnoses were used in every third DC, with 'sudden death' or 'cause of death unknown' preferred by physicians on call and 'unspecified pneumonia' preferred by in-house physicians. Comparisons against medical records uncovered missing information in 49% and 35% of DCs from physicians on call and in-house physicians, respectively. A dementia diagnosis was frequently overlooked by both physician types. Garbage code diagnoses were more common in DCs with missing information from medical records.

Conclusions: Error rates in DCs in nursing homes in Norway are high. The results raise concerns about the validity of public cause of death statistics.

养老院的死因证明:质量重要吗?挪威两个县的回顾性研究。
目的:一半挪威人死于疗养院,疗养院的死亡证明(DC)由两类医生填写:内部医生或待命医生。本研究的目的是检查因医生类型不同而导致的死亡证明书质量差异,并揭示错误可能对公共统计造成的影响:根据逻辑缺陷、垃圾代码诊断和认证医生类型,对阿克苏斯大学医院集水区疗养院 2013 年的 DC 进行了检查。在三分之一的病例中,登记的死亡原因与医疗记录中的信息进行了比较:共对 24 家疗养院的 873 份 DC 进行了评估。值班医生对 46% 的死亡病例进行了认证。在 34% 的死亡病历中发现了逻辑缺陷,而在值班医生的死亡病历中更常见。每三份病历中就有一份使用了垃圾代码诊断,"猝死 "或 "死因不明 "是值班医生的首选,而 "不明原因肺炎 "则是内部医生的首选。与病历对比发现,值班医生和内部医生分别有 49% 和 35% 的病历信息缺失。两类医生都经常忽略痴呆诊断。在缺失医疗记录信息的病历中,垃圾代码诊断更为常见: 结论:挪威疗养院的诊断错误率很高。这些结果引起了人们对公共死因统计数据有效性的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
135
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health is an international peer-reviewed journal which has a vision to: publish public health research of good quality; contribute to the conceptual and methodological development of public health; contribute to global health issues; contribute to news and overviews of public health developments and health policy developments in the Nordic countries; reflect the multidisciplinarity of public health.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信