OBJECTIVE: To examine whether sepsis is accurately coded on hospital bills. METHODS: Hospital inpatient uniform bills (UB-92) for 122 patients with clinically documented severe sepsis of presumed infectious origin were retrospectively examined. Final UB-92 hospital bills were obtained for all study subjects. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes from these bills were then reviewed to ascertain the number of subjects for whom one or more diagnostic codes for septicemia and/or bacteremia were present. RESULTS: A total of 92 hospital bills (75.4%) contained one or more ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes for septicemia and/or bacteremia. Of the 30 that did not, 15 (12.3%) had codes for major systemic infection and organ failure. No diagnoses indicative of sepsis (i.e., organ failure and major infection) were present on the remaining 15 (12.3%) bills. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that use of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying patients with sepsis using hospital bills is only moderately sensitive. Strict reliance on administrative data sources for sepsis surveillance or research planning may therefore be prone to substantial error.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether sepsis is accurately coded on hospital bills. METHODS: Hospital inpatient uniform bills (UB-92) for 122 patients with clinically documented severe sepsis of presumed infectious origin were retrospectively examined. Final UB-92 hospital bills were obtained for all study subjects. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes from these bills were then reviewed to ascertain the number of subjects for whom one or more diagnostic codes for septicemia and/or bacteremia were present. RESULTS: A total of 92 hospital bills (75.4%) contained one or more ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes for septicemia and/or bacteremia. Of the 30 that did not, 15 (12.3%) had codes for major systemic infection and organ failure. No diagnoses indicative of sepsis (i.e., organ failure and major infection) were present on the remaining 15 (12.3%) bills. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that use of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying patients with sepsis using hospital bills is only moderately sensitive. Strict reliance on administrative data sources for sepsis surveillance or research planning may therefore be prone to substantial error.
Authors: Annette M Esper; Marc Moss; Charmaine A Lewis; Rachel Nisbet; David M Mannino; Greg S Martin Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Heidi S Bazick; Domingo Chang; Karthik Mahadevappa; Fiona K Gibbons; Kenneth B Christopher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Marin L Schweizer; Michael R Eber; Ramanan Laxminarayan; Jon P Furuno; Kyle J Popovich; Bala Hota; Michael A Rubin; Eli N Perencevich Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Andrea Braun; Domingo Chang; Karthik Mahadevappa; Fiona K Gibbons; Yan Liu; Edward Giovannucci; Kenneth B Christopher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Henry E Wang; Randolph S Devereaux; Donald M Yealy; Monika M Safford; George Howard Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 3.918
Authors: Lars Skov Dalgaard; Mette Nørgaard; Johan Vestergaard Povlsen; Bente Jespersen; Søren Jensen-Fangel; Svend Ellermann-Eriksen; Lars Østergaard; Henrik Carl Schønheyder; Ole Schmeltz Søgaard Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Amber E Barnato; Sherri L Alexander; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Reena Mahajan; Anne C Moorman; Stephen J Liu; Loralee Rupp; R Monina Klevens Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: S Reza Jafarzadeh; Benjamin S Thomas; Jonas Marschall; Victoria J Fraser; Jeff Gill; David K Warren Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 3.797