利用多重出院编码将提高巨细胞动脉炎患者的识别:对医院出院数据集的回顾性分析。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Andrew Dermawan, Julia Murdoch, Jean Louis De Sousa, Andrew Taylor, Helen Keen
{"title":"利用多重出院编码将提高巨细胞动脉炎患者的识别:对医院出院数据集的回顾性分析。","authors":"Andrew Dermawan, Julia Murdoch, Jean Louis De Sousa, Andrew Taylor, Helen Keen","doi":"10.1007/s00296-025-05814-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To determine whether the discharge diagnosis codes used within tertiary hospitals accurately identified patients with Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA), as determined by expert opinion at 6 months. The study was performed across three major hospitals within Perth, Western Australia. Patients with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code for GCA (M31.5 and M31.6) at discharge on first inpatient presentation were identified. Review of case notes, discharge summaries, letters, pathology, and imaging results were undertaken. The percentage of patients with an ICD code for GCA at initial discharge with confirmed GCA by expert opinion at 6 months (as the anchor diagnosis) was calculated. As validation of the anchor diagnosis, the percentage who fulfilled the 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria was also calculated, the number of hospital discharges per patient with an ICD code for GCA was calculated, to determine if multiple discharges with an ICD code for GCA increased the specificity of the ICD coding. 93 out of 157 admissions with an ICD for GCA were identified as a first inpatient presentation. At 6 months follow up, 65.6%, 95 CI [55.0%, 75.1%] had confirmed GCA by expert opinion. 88.2%, 95 CI [79.8%, 93.9%] met the 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria for GCA. The specificity of the ICD coding increased with increasing number of discharges- 67.4% with single episode, 80% with two episodes, and 100% with three or more episodes (p = 0.1373). Only 43.8%, 95 CI [26.4%, 62.3%] of patients who did not have GCA had an alternative diagnosis provided. 31.3%, 95 CI [16.1%, 50.0%] of patients who did not have GCA still have the GCA diagnosis listed in their subsequent clinical records and discharge summaries. Only 2/3rds of those patients with an initial discharge ICD code for GCA were found to have confirmed GCA at follow-up. This poor correlation between the ICD coding and confirmed diagnosis of GCA will impact the quality of data extracted from administrative health datasets for epidemiological and longitudinal studies. Selecting patients with two or more GCA coded episodes could improve the homogeneity of the cohort for recruitment into GCA studies, but a larger sample size study is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":21322,"journal":{"name":"Rheumatology International","volume":"45 3","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11845429/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilising multiple discharge coding will improve identification of patients with giant cell arteritis: a retrospective analysis of a hospital discharge dataset.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Dermawan, Julia Murdoch, Jean Louis De Sousa, Andrew Taylor, Helen Keen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00296-025-05814-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To determine whether the discharge diagnosis codes used within tertiary hospitals accurately identified patients with Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA), as determined by expert opinion at 6 months. The study was performed across three major hospitals within Perth, Western Australia. Patients with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code for GCA (M31.5 and M31.6) at discharge on first inpatient presentation were identified. Review of case notes, discharge summaries, letters, pathology, and imaging results were undertaken. The percentage of patients with an ICD code for GCA at initial discharge with confirmed GCA by expert opinion at 6 months (as the anchor diagnosis) was calculated. As validation of the anchor diagnosis, the percentage who fulfilled the 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria was also calculated, the number of hospital discharges per patient with an ICD code for GCA was calculated, to determine if multiple discharges with an ICD code for GCA increased the specificity of the ICD coding. 93 out of 157 admissions with an ICD for GCA were identified as a first inpatient presentation. At 6 months follow up, 65.6%, 95 CI [55.0%, 75.1%] had confirmed GCA by expert opinion. 88.2%, 95 CI [79.8%, 93.9%] met the 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria for GCA. The specificity of the ICD coding increased with increasing number of discharges- 67.4% with single episode, 80% with two episodes, and 100% with three or more episodes (p = 0.1373). Only 43.8%, 95 CI [26.4%, 62.3%] of patients who did not have GCA had an alternative diagnosis provided. 31.3%, 95 CI [16.1%, 50.0%] of patients who did not have GCA still have the GCA diagnosis listed in their subsequent clinical records and discharge summaries. Only 2/3rds of those patients with an initial discharge ICD code for GCA were found to have confirmed GCA at follow-up. This poor correlation between the ICD coding and confirmed diagnosis of GCA will impact the quality of data extracted from administrative health datasets for epidemiological and longitudinal studies. Selecting patients with two or more GCA coded episodes could improve the homogeneity of the cohort for recruitment into GCA studies, but a larger sample size study is required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rheumatology International\",\"volume\":\"45 3\",\"pages\":\"58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11845429/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rheumatology International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-025-05814-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rheumatology International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-025-05814-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

确定三级医院使用的出院诊断代码是否能准确识别巨细胞动脉炎(GCA)患者,根据专家意见确定6个月。这项研究在西澳大利亚州珀斯的三家主要医院进行。在首次住院时,确定出院时具有国际疾病分类(ICD) GCA代码(M31.5和M31.6)的患者。回顾病例记录、出院总结、信件、病理和影像学结果。计算出院时ICD编码为GCA的患者在6个月时经专家意见确认为GCA(作为锚定诊断)的百分比。作为锚定诊断的验证,还计算了满足2022年ACR/EULAR标准的百分比,计算了患有GCA ICD代码的每位患者的出院次数,以确定患有GCA ICD代码的多次出院是否增加了ICD编码的特异性。157例因GCA就诊的ICD患者中有93例被确定为首次住院。随访6个月,65.6%,95 CI[55.0%, 75.1%]经专家意见确认GCA。88.2%, 95 CI[79.8%, 93.9%]符合GCA的2022年ACR/EULAR标准。ICD编码的特异性随着出院次数的增加而增加,单次发作为67.4%,两次发作为80%,三次及以上为100% (p = 0.1373)。在没有GCA的患者中,只有43.8%,95 CI[26.4%, 62.3%]提供了替代诊断。31.3%, 95 CI[16.1%, 50.0%]未发生GCA的患者在随后的临床记录和出院总结中仍有GCA诊断。在那些初始出院ICD代码为GCA的患者中,只有2/3在随访时被发现确诊为GCA。ICD编码与GCA确诊诊断之间的这种低相关性将影响从流行病学和纵向研究的行政卫生数据集中提取的数据的质量。选择两次或两次以上GCA编码发作的患者可以改善纳入GCA研究的队列的同质性,但需要更大的样本量研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Utilising multiple discharge coding will improve identification of patients with giant cell arteritis: a retrospective analysis of a hospital discharge dataset.

To determine whether the discharge diagnosis codes used within tertiary hospitals accurately identified patients with Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA), as determined by expert opinion at 6 months. The study was performed across three major hospitals within Perth, Western Australia. Patients with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code for GCA (M31.5 and M31.6) at discharge on first inpatient presentation were identified. Review of case notes, discharge summaries, letters, pathology, and imaging results were undertaken. The percentage of patients with an ICD code for GCA at initial discharge with confirmed GCA by expert opinion at 6 months (as the anchor diagnosis) was calculated. As validation of the anchor diagnosis, the percentage who fulfilled the 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria was also calculated, the number of hospital discharges per patient with an ICD code for GCA was calculated, to determine if multiple discharges with an ICD code for GCA increased the specificity of the ICD coding. 93 out of 157 admissions with an ICD for GCA were identified as a first inpatient presentation. At 6 months follow up, 65.6%, 95 CI [55.0%, 75.1%] had confirmed GCA by expert opinion. 88.2%, 95 CI [79.8%, 93.9%] met the 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria for GCA. The specificity of the ICD coding increased with increasing number of discharges- 67.4% with single episode, 80% with two episodes, and 100% with three or more episodes (p = 0.1373). Only 43.8%, 95 CI [26.4%, 62.3%] of patients who did not have GCA had an alternative diagnosis provided. 31.3%, 95 CI [16.1%, 50.0%] of patients who did not have GCA still have the GCA diagnosis listed in their subsequent clinical records and discharge summaries. Only 2/3rds of those patients with an initial discharge ICD code for GCA were found to have confirmed GCA at follow-up. This poor correlation between the ICD coding and confirmed diagnosis of GCA will impact the quality of data extracted from administrative health datasets for epidemiological and longitudinal studies. Selecting patients with two or more GCA coded episodes could improve the homogeneity of the cohort for recruitment into GCA studies, but a larger sample size study is required.

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
Rheumatology International
Rheumatology International 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
191
审稿时长
16. months
期刊介绍: RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL is an independent journal reflecting world-wide progress in the research, diagnosis and treatment of the various rheumatic diseases. It is designed to serve researchers and clinicians in the field of rheumatology. RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL will cover all modern trends in clinical research as well as in the management of rheumatic diseases. Special emphasis will be given to public health issues related to rheumatic diseases, applying rheumatology research to clinical practice, epidemiology of rheumatic diseases, diagnostic tests for rheumatic diseases, patient reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology and evidence on education of rheumatology. Contributions to these topics will appear in the form of original publications, short communications, editorials, and reviews. "Letters to the editor" will be welcome as an enhancement to discussion. Basic science research, including in vitro or animal studies, is discouraged to submit, as we will only review studies on humans with an epidemological or clinical perspective. Case reports without a proper review of the literatura (Case-based Reviews) will not be published. Every effort will be made to ensure speed of publication while maintaining a high standard of contents and production. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted.
×
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