Quality Improvement in Health Care (한국의료질향상학회지)

Korean Society for Quality in Health Care (한국의료질향상학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Perceptions of Hospital Health Information Managers Regarding Present on Admission Indicators in Korea: A Qualitative Study

입원 시 상병의 수집 및 활용에 관한 보건의료정보관리사의 관점: 질적 연구

  • Pyo, Jee-Hee (Department of Preventive Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Eun-Young (Department of Preventive Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital) ;
  • Oh, Hae-Mi (Asian Institute for Bioethics and Health Law, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Won (Department of Nursing, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Kim, Ju-Young (Asan Medical Institute of Convergence Science and Technology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Ock, Min-Su (Department of Preventive Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, So-Yoon (Division of Medical Law and Bioethics, Department of Medical Humanities and Social Sciences, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Il (Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • 표지희 (울산대학교병원 예방의학과) ;
  • 최은영 (울산대학교병원 예방의학과) ;
  • 오혜미 (연세대학교 의료법윤리학연구원) ;
  • 이원 (중앙대학교 간호학과) ;
  • 김주영 (아산융합의학원 예방의학교실) ;
  • 옥민수 (울산대학교병원 예방의학과) ;
  • 김소윤 (연세대학교 의과대학 인문사회의학교실 의료법윤리학과) ;
  • 이상일 (울산의대 예방의학과)
  • Received : 2020.05.07
  • Accepted : 2020.06.17
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This qualitative study was conducted to examine the current status and problems concerning the collection of present on admission (POA) indicators and determine how to use these indicators for evaluating the quality of care and degree of patient safety. Methods: A total of 11 health information managers were divided into two groups according to the size of their hospitals. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted, one for each group, which followed a pre-developed semi-structured guideline. The verbatim transcriptions of the FGDs were analyzed. Results: The majority of participants were concerned about entering POA flags honestly because they did not know how future POA indicators would be used. In particular, for some participants, POA N was a burden that could imply a signal of mismanagement within the medical institution. In addition, the lack of awareness and indifference of physicians regarding POA indicators were some of the difficulties for POA flag entry. Although medical institutions are making efforts to improve the accuracy of POA flagging, many participants mentioned the need to develop real case-oriented POA entry guidelines to improve the accuracy of POA flagging. Conclusion: To increase the validity of POA indicators, it is necessary to increase the level of awareness of POA indicators in physicians and other medical professionals. Furthermore, efforts related to POA indicators by individual medical institutions need to be reflected in the process evaluation.

Keywords

References

  1. Lee SI, Ock M. Current status of patient safety management and its improvement direction. HIRA Policy Brief 2014;8(5):5-15.
  2. Ock M, Kim HJ, Jeon B, Kim YJ, Ryu HM, Lee MS. Identifying Adverse Events Using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Y Codes in Korea: A Cross-sectional Study. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health 2018;51(1):15-22. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.17.118
  3. Mourik MS, Duijn PJ, Moons KG, Bonten MJ, Lee GM. Accuracy of administrative data for surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2015;5(8):e008424. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008424
  4. MacCallum C, Da Silva N, Gibbs P, Thomson BNJ, Skandarajah A, Hayes I. Accuracy of administrative coding data in colorectal cancer resections and short-term outcomes. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2018;88(9):876-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14714
  5. Glance LG, Dick AW, Osler TM, Mukamel DB. Accuracy of hospital report cards based on administrative data. Health Services Research 2006;41(4 Pt 1):1413-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00554.x
  6. Glance LG, Osler TM, Mukamel DB, Dick AW. Impact of the present-on-admission indicator on hospital quality measurement: Experience with the agency for health care research and quality (AHRQ) inpatient quality indicators. Medical Care 2008;46(2):112-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318158aed6
  7. Kaafarani HM, Borzecki AM, Itani KM, Loveland S, Mull HJ, Hickson K, et al. Validity of selected Patient Safety Indicators: opportunities and concerns. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2011;212(6):924-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.07.007
  8. Stukenborg GJ, Wagner DP, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Present-at-admission diagnoses improved mortality risk adjustment among acute myocardial infarction patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007;60(2):142-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.05.014
  9. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital-Acquired Conditions (Present on Admission Indicator); [cited 2020 April 28]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/HospitalAcqCond/index.html
  10. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Episode of admitted patient care-condition onset flag, code N.; [cited 2020 April 28]. Available from: https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/686100
  11. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007;19(6):349-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
  12. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2005;15(9):1277-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  13. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, California; Sage; 1989:294.
  14. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Toolkit for Using the AHRQ Quality Indicators, How To Improve Hospital Quality and Safety. 2017; [cited 2020 April 28]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/patient-safety/settings/hospital/resource/qitool/index.html
  15. DRG Department of Health Insurance Review & Assessment service. New comprehensive POA coding principles and guidelines. 2016
  16. Present on Admission (POA) Indicator Toolkit; [cited 2020 June 14]. Available from: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/datainnovations/clinicaldata/poatoolkit.jsp
  17. Korean Health Information Management Association. Practical guide for disease classification. Seoul: Korean Health information Management Association. 2019.
  18. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Discharge Abstract Database Metadata (DAD); [cited 2020 April 28]. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/en/discharge-abstract-database-metadata
  19. Barrett ML, Owens PL, Bolhack J, Sheng M. Examination of the Coding of Present-on-Admission Indicators in Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SID). 2015. HCUP Methods Series Report #2015-06 ONLINE. September 1, 2015. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; [cited 2020 April 28]. Available from: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/methods.jsp
  20. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Hospital-acquired complications (HACs); [cited 2020 April 28]. Available from: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/indicators/hospital-acquired-complications
  21. Jackson TJ, Michel JL, Roberts R, Shepheard J, Cheng D, Rust J, et al. Development of a validation algorithm for 'present on admission' flagging. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009;9(48).
  22. Ock M, Lee SI, Jo MW, Lee JY, Kim SH. Assessing Reliability of Medical Record Reviews for the Detection of Hospital Adverse Events. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health. 2015;48(5):239-48. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.14.049