疾病的严重程度和所有与患者细化诊断相关群体的死亡风险:不同概念的两个尺度还是一枚硬币的两面?

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
João Vasco Santos, João Viana, Carla Pinto, Júlio Souza, Fernando Lopes, Alberto Freitas, Sílvia Lopes
{"title":"疾病的严重程度和所有与患者细化诊断相关群体的死亡风险:不同概念的两个尺度还是一枚硬币的两面?","authors":"João Vasco Santos, João Viana, Carla Pinto, Júlio Souza, Fernando Lopes, Alberto Freitas, Sílvia Lopes","doi":"10.1002/hpm.3848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>All patient refined-diagnosis related groups (APR-DRGs) includes severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM) subclasses. For predictions, both subscales are used together or interchangeably. We aimed to compare SOI and ROM by evaluating the reliability and agreement between both. We performed a retrospective observational study using mainland Portuguese public hospitalisations of adult patients from 2011 to 2016. Reliability (quadratic weighted kappa) and agreement (proportion of agreement) between SOI and ROM were analysed overall and by APR-DRG. While overall reliability and agreement between SOI and ROM were high (weighted kappa: 0.717, 95% CI 0.717-0.718; proportion of agreement: 69.0%, 95% CI 69.0-69.0) there was high heterogeneity across APR-DRGs, ranging from 0.016 to 0.846 on reliability and from 23.1% to 94.8% on agreement. Most of APR-DRGs (263 out of 284) showed a higher proportion of episodes with ROM level above the SOI level than the opposite. In conclusion, SOI and Risk of Mortality measures must be clearly distinguished and are 'two scales of different concepts' rather than 'two sides of the same coin'. However, this is more evident for some APR-DRGs than for others.</p>","PeriodicalId":47637,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Severity of illness and risk of mortality from all patient refined-diagnosis related groups: Two scales of different concepts or two sides of the same coin?\",\"authors\":\"João Vasco Santos, João Viana, Carla Pinto, Júlio Souza, Fernando Lopes, Alberto Freitas, Sílvia Lopes\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hpm.3848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>All patient refined-diagnosis related groups (APR-DRGs) includes severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM) subclasses. For predictions, both subscales are used together or interchangeably. We aimed to compare SOI and ROM by evaluating the reliability and agreement between both. We performed a retrospective observational study using mainland Portuguese public hospitalisations of adult patients from 2011 to 2016. Reliability (quadratic weighted kappa) and agreement (proportion of agreement) between SOI and ROM were analysed overall and by APR-DRG. While overall reliability and agreement between SOI and ROM were high (weighted kappa: 0.717, 95% CI 0.717-0.718; proportion of agreement: 69.0%, 95% CI 69.0-69.0) there was high heterogeneity across APR-DRGs, ranging from 0.016 to 0.846 on reliability and from 23.1% to 94.8% on agreement. Most of APR-DRGs (263 out of 284) showed a higher proportion of episodes with ROM level above the SOI level than the opposite. In conclusion, SOI and Risk of Mortality measures must be clearly distinguished and are 'two scales of different concepts' rather than 'two sides of the same coin'. However, this is more evident for some APR-DRGs than for others.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Planning and Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Planning and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3848\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3848","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

所有患者细化诊断相关组(APR-DRGs)都包括疾病严重程度(SOI)和死亡风险(ROM)子类。为了进行预测,这两个子量表被同时使用或互换使用。我们的目的是通过评估 SOI 和 ROM 的可靠性和一致性来对两者进行比较。我们利用 2011 年至 2016 年葡萄牙大陆公立医院的成年住院患者进行了一项回顾性观察研究。对SOI和ROM之间的可靠性(二次加权卡帕)和一致性(一致比例)进行了总体分析,并按APR-DRG进行了分析。SOI和ROM之间的总体可靠性和一致性都很高(加权卡帕:0.717,95% CI 0.717-0.718;一致性比例:69.0%,95% CI 0.717-0.718):69.0%,95% CI 69.0-69.0),APR-DRGs之间的异质性很高,可靠性从0.016到0.846不等,一致性从23.1%到94.8%不等。大多数 APR-DRGs(284 个中的 263 个)显示 ROM 水平高于 SOI 水平的病例比例高于 SOI 水平。总之,必须明确区分 SOI 和死亡风险测量,它们是 "不同概念的两个尺度",而不是 "一枚硬币的两面"。然而,这一点在某些 APR-DRGs 中比在其他 APR-DRGs 中更为明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Severity of illness and risk of mortality from all patient refined-diagnosis related groups: Two scales of different concepts or two sides of the same coin?

All patient refined-diagnosis related groups (APR-DRGs) includes severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM) subclasses. For predictions, both subscales are used together or interchangeably. We aimed to compare SOI and ROM by evaluating the reliability and agreement between both. We performed a retrospective observational study using mainland Portuguese public hospitalisations of adult patients from 2011 to 2016. Reliability (quadratic weighted kappa) and agreement (proportion of agreement) between SOI and ROM were analysed overall and by APR-DRG. While overall reliability and agreement between SOI and ROM were high (weighted kappa: 0.717, 95% CI 0.717-0.718; proportion of agreement: 69.0%, 95% CI 69.0-69.0) there was high heterogeneity across APR-DRGs, ranging from 0.016 to 0.846 on reliability and from 23.1% to 94.8% on agreement. Most of APR-DRGs (263 out of 284) showed a higher proportion of episodes with ROM level above the SOI level than the opposite. In conclusion, SOI and Risk of Mortality measures must be clearly distinguished and are 'two scales of different concepts' rather than 'two sides of the same coin'. However, this is more evident for some APR-DRGs than for others.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
197
期刊介绍: Policy making and implementation, planning and management are widely recognized as central to effective health systems and services and to better health. Globalization, and the economic circumstances facing groups of countries worldwide, meanwhile present a great challenge for health planning and management. The aim of this quarterly journal is to offer a forum for publications which direct attention to major issues in health policy, planning and management. The intention is to maintain a balance between theory and practice, from a variety of disciplines, fields and perspectives. The Journal is explicitly international and multidisciplinary in scope and appeal: articles about policy, planning and management in countries at various stages of political, social, cultural and economic development are welcomed, as are those directed at the different levels (national, regional, local) of the health sector. Manuscripts are invited from a spectrum of different disciplines e.g., (the social sciences, management and medicine) as long as they advance our knowledge and understanding of the health sector. The Journal is therefore global, and eclectic.
×
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