Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2007 Apr 16:4:3.

Coding for quality measurement: the relationship between hospital structural characteristics and coding accuracy from the perspective of quality measurement

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Coding for quality measurement: the relationship between hospital structural characteristics and coding accuracy from the perspective of quality measurement

Pavani Rangachari. Perspect Health Inf Manag. .

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between hospital structural characteristics and coding accuracy from the perspective of quality measurement. To measure coding accuracy for quality measurement, the study utilizes the "present on admission" indicator, a data element in the New York state hospital administrative database. This data element is used by hospitals across New York state to indicate if a particular secondary diagnosis is "present on admission," "not present on admission," or "uncertain." Since the accurate distinction between comorbidities (present at admission) and complications (not present at admission,) is critical for risk adjustment in comparative hospital quality reports, this study uses the occurrence of the value "uncertain" in the "present on admission" indicator as the primary measure of coding accuracy. A lower occurrence of the value "uncertain" is considered to be reflective of better coding accuracy. Moreover, since coding accuracy of the "present on admission" indicator links back to the accuracy of physician documentation, a focus on the occurrence of the value "uncertain," also helps gain insight into physician documentation efficacy within the facility. By utilizing this approach, therefore, the study serves the twin purpose of 1) addressing the gap in the literature with respect to large-scale studies of "coding for quality," and 2) providing insight into the structural characteristics of institutions that are likely facing organizational challenges of physician documentation from the perspective of quality measurement.

Keywords: comorbidities and complications; comparative report cards; health information management; hospital administrative data; hospital coding accuracy; hospital quality measurement; physician documentation; physician-coder coordination; present on admission indicator; public reporting; risk adjustment.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

Notes

    1. Dudley, A., Rittenhouse, D., Bae, R. “Creating a Statewide Hospital Quality Reporting System.” California HealthCare Foundation (2002).
    1. Leatherman S, Berwick D. The Business Case for Quality: Case Studies and an Analysis. Health Affairs. 2003;22(2):17–30. - PubMed
    1. Naessens J, Huschka T. Distinguishing Hospital Complications from Preexisting Conditions. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2004;16:i27–i35. - PubMed
    1. Romano P, Rainwater J, Antonius P. Grading the Graders: How Hospitals in California and New York Perceive and Interpret their Report Cards. Medical Care. 2001;37:295–305. - PubMed
    1. Hibbard J, Harris-Kojetin P, Lubalin J, Garfinkel S. Increasing the Impact of Health Plan Report Cards by Addressing Consumers' Concerns. Health Affairs. 2000;19:138–143. - PubMed

References

    1. ICD-9-CM. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1999.
    1. Brailer D, Krauch E, Pauly M. Comorbidity-Adjusted Complication Risk: A New Outcome Quality Measure. Medical Care. 1996;34(5):490–505. - PubMed
    1. Chassin M, Galvin R. The Urgent Need to Improve Health Care Quality. (Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality) Journal of American Medical Association. 1998;280:1000–1005. - PubMed
    1. Donabedian A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1980.
    1. Donaldson M. Measuring the Quality of Health Care (A Statement by the National Roundtable on Health Care Quality) Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms