Risk-adjusting acute myocardial infarction mortality: are APR-DRGs the right tool?
P S Romano, B K Chan, P S Romano, B K Chan
Abstract
Objective: To determine if a widely used proprietary risk-adjustment system, APR-DRGs, misadjusts for severity of illness and misclassifies provider performance.
Data sources: (1) Discharge abstracts for 116,174 noninstitutionalized adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admitted to nonfederal California hospitals in 1991-1993; (2) inpatient medical records for a stratified probability sample of 974 patients with AMIs admitted to 30 California hospitals between July 31, 1990 and May 31, 1991.
Study design: Using the 1991-1993 data set, we evaluated the predictive performance of APR-DRGs Version 12. Using the 1990/1991 validation sample, we assessed the effect of assigning APR-DRGs based on different sources of ICD-9-CM data.
Data collection/extraction methods: Trained, blinded coders reabstracted all ICD-9-CM diagnoses and procedures, and established the timing of each diagnosis. APR-DRG Risk of Mortality and Severity of Illness classes were assigned based on (1) all hospital-reported diagnoses, (2) all reabstracted diagnoses, and (3) reabstracted diagnoses present at admission. The outcome variables were 30-day mortality in the 1991-1993 data set and 30-day inpatient mortality in the 1990/1991 validation sample.
Principal findings: The APR-DRG Risk of Mortality class was a strong predictor of death (c = .831-.847), but was further enhanced by adding age and sex. Reabstracting diagnoses improved the apparent performance of APR-DRGs (c = .93 versus c = .87), while using only the diagnoses present at admission decreased apparent performance (c = .74). Reabstracting diagnoses had less effect on hospitals' expected mortality rates (r = .83-.85) than using diagnoses present at admission instead of all reabstracted diagnoses (r = .72-.77). There was fair agreement in classifying hospital performance based on these three sets of diagnostic data (K = 0.35-0.38).
Conclusions: The APR-DRG Risk of Mortality system is a powerful risk-adjustment tool, largely because it includes all relevant diagnoses, regardless of timing. Although some late diagnoses may not be preventable, APR-DRGs appear suitable only if one assumes that none is preventable.
References
- Med Care. 1991 Dec;29(12):1196-211
- Med Care. 1992 Jul;30(7):615-29
- Med Care. 1994 Jul;32(7):700-15
- Int J Qual Health Care. 1995 Jun;7(2):81-94
- Med Care. 1996 Jan;34(1):11-28
- Med Care. 1996 May;34(5):490-505
- Am J Public Health. 1996 Oct;86(10):1379-87
- Ann Intern Med. 1997 Mar 1;126(5):347-54
- Stat Med. 1997 May 15;16(9):965-80
- JAMA. 1997 Nov 19;278(19):1600-7
- Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):28-39
- Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
- Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29-36
- Med Care. 1986 Aug;24(8):733-41
- Med Care. 1990 Sep;28(9):762-75
Source: PubMed