Article

Application of patient safety indicators internationally: a pilot study among seven countries.

Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Health Care, Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences, Reinarzstrasse 49, Krefeld, Germany.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.79). 04/2009; 21(4):272-8. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzp018
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To explore the potential for international comparison of patient safety as part of the Health Care Quality Indicators project of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) by evaluating patient safety indicators originally published by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
A retrospective cross-sectional study.
Acute care hospitals in the USA, UK, Sweden, Spain, Germany, Canada and Australia in 2004 and 2005/2006.
Routine hospitalization-related administrative data from seven countries were analyzed. Using algorithms adapted to the diagnosis and procedure coding systems in place in each country, authorities in each of the participating countries reported summaries of the distribution of hospital-level and overall (national) rates for each AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator to the OECD project secretariat.
Each country's vector of national indicator rates and the vector of American patient safety indicators rates published by AHRQ (and re-estimated as part of this study) were highly correlated (0.821-0.966). However, there was substantial systematic variation in rates across countries.
This pilot study reveals that AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators can be applied to international hospital data. However, the analyses suggest that certain indicators (e.g. 'birth trauma', 'complications of anesthesia') may be too unreliable for international comparisons. Data quality varies across countries; undercoding may be a systematic problem in some countries. Efforts at international harmonization of hospital discharge data sets as well as improved accuracy of documentation should facilitate future comparative analyses of routine databases.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
94 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The revenues of German hospitals are mainly determined by DRG-based payments. Therefore DRGs should appropriately explain the resource consumption of hospitals in order to avoid unintended consequences. So far little is known about the ability of German DRGs to adequately reflect the cost of a hospital stay.Regression techniques were applied using anonymised year 2008 cost and performance data of 50 156 cases from 29 hospitals for 10 common episodes of care in order a) to analyse the impact of patient and treatment characteristics on costs and b) to test if DRG variables are better in explaining resource consumption than this set of patient variables.Depending on the episode of care, patient and treatment variables have a different impact on hospital costs. However, they are better in explaining resource consumption than the DRG variables for each episode of care. In addi-tion, independent of the patient characteristics hospitals have an impact on costs which might be due to factors that are not considered by the DRG-system.The analysis shows that the German DRG system requires further research. However, to date this is limited by poor data availability. Compared to other DRG systems the German system shows a weak performance. The incorporation of some of the used variables as well as an increasing international knowledge transfer might help to further improve the German DRG system.
    Das Gesundheitswesen 10/2013; · 0.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper outlines the approach that the WHO's Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC) network is undertaking to create ICD-11. We also outline the more focused work of the Quality and Safety Topic Advisory Group, whose activities include the following: (i) cataloguing existing ICD-9 and ICD-10 quality and safety indicators; (ii) reviewing ICD morbidity coding rules for main condition, diagnosis timing, numbers of diagnosis fields and diagnosis clustering; (iii) substantial restructuring of the health-care related injury concepts coded in the ICD-10 chapters 19/20, (iv) mapping of ICD-11 quality and safety concepts to the information model of the WHO's International Classification for Patient Safety and the AHRQ Common Formats; (v) the review of vertical chapter content in all chapters of the ICD-11 beta version and (vi) downstream field testing of ICD-11 prior to its official 2015 release. The transition from ICD-10 to ICD-11 promises to produce an enhanced classification that will have better potential to capture important concepts relevant to measuring health system safety and quality-an important use case for the classification.
    International Journal for Quality in Health Care 10/2013; · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This study aims to determine whether national patient safety indicators (PSIs) can be calculated. Methods: Using PSI criteria from Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Health Technical Papers 19 based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), PSIs were identified in the Korean National Hospital Discharge In-depth Injury Survey (KNHDIIS) database for 875,622 inpatient admissions between 2004 and 2008. Logistic regression was used to estimate factors of variations for PSIs. Results: From 2004 to 2008, 3,084 PSI events of 8 PSIs occurred for over 80 thousands discharges. Rates per 1,000 events for decubitus ulcer (PSI3, 4.88), foreign body left during procedure (PSI5, 0.05), postoperative sepsis (PSI13, 1.32), birth trauma-injury to neonate (PSI17, 7.92) and obstetric trauma-vaginal delivery (PSI18, 32.81) are all identified between ranges from maximum to minimum of OECD rates, respectively. However, rates per 1,000 events for selected infections due to medical care (PSI7, 0.22), postoperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (PSI12, 0.90) and accidental puncture or laceration (PSI15, 0.71) are below the minimum of OECD range. 7 PSIs except PSI 18 showed statistically significant relationship with number of secondary diagnoses. When adjusting patient characteristics, there are statistically significant different rates according to bed size or location of hospitals. Conclusion: This is the first empirical study to identify nationally number of adverse events and PSIs using administrative database. While many factors influencing these results such as quality of data, clinical data and so on are remain, the results indicate opportunities for estimate national statistics for patient safety. Furthermore outcome research such as mortality related to adverse events is needed based on results of this study.
    Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society. 05/2013; 14(5).