Literature DB >> 16838174

[Necessity of increasing autopsy frequency following the introduction of DRGs].

M G Krukemeyer1, C v d Driesch, A Dankof, V Krenn, D Hansen, M Dietel.   

Abstract

With the introduction of DRGs (diagnosis related groups) in 2004, a new charging system was initiated in Germany. Changes primarily involve lump sum based charging of inpatient cases regardless of the duration or complexity of diagnostic procedures and therapy, and the equalization of costs for similar services. Calculation of DRGs also includes the costs of autopsy. This has three major consequences for autopsy practice: Quality assurance: continuous monitoring of professional quality under lump sum payment can only be permanently guaranteed and independently and reliably attained by autopsy. This is the only way to overcome the danger of abolishing essential diagnostic procedures because of economic pressure and thus risking incorrect diagnoses. Economy: additional diagnoses revealed by autopsy will, in many cases, raise calculated charges. This could have a significant financial impact. Legal certainty: autopsies increase the accuracy and objectivity of diagnoses. Thus, they protect the attending physician from incorrect charging which may be unintended but could be legally relevant, especially when the cause of death is unclear. For these reasons, autopsy should become more important in clinical routine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 16838174     DOI: 10.1007/s00292-006-0846-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathologe        ISSN: 0172-8113            Impact factor:   1.011


  5 in total

1.  [Autopsy--as superfluous as goiter?].

Authors:  W Eisenmenger
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  2001-03-09       Impact factor: 0.628

2.  [Quality control by autopsy. How often do the postmortem examination findings correct the clinical diagnosis?].

Authors:  T M Bauer; D Potratz; T Göller; A Wagner; R Schäfer
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  1991-05-24       Impact factor: 0.628

3.  [Autopsy refusal and reversal of the proof responsibility in the malpractice process].

Authors:  C Jansen
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 1.011

4.  The autopsy as a measure of accuracy of the death certificate.

Authors:  T Kircher; J Nelson; H Burdo
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-11-14       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  [The unclear death. Negative trends in legal care and health care].

Authors:  B Brinkmann; M Kleiber; W Janssen
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 1.011

  5 in total
  9 in total

1.  [Autopsies 2010. Is death still teaching the living?].

Authors:  C Tóth
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.011

2.  Virtual CT autopsy in clinical pathology: feasibility in clinical autopsies.

Authors:  Saskia E Westphal; Jonas Apitzsch; Tobias Penzkofer; Andreas H Mahnken; Ruth Knüchel
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  [Clinical autopsies. Practical approach, legal foundations and ethical considerations].

Authors:  J Friemann
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.011

4.  [How often is bronchopneumonia overlooked as the cause of death in intensive care unit patients?].

Authors:  S Koch; J Bredahl; S P Wirtz; U R Jahn; S Gunia
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  [Evaluation of the clinical utility of autopsy: an investigation at the Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Leipzig].

Authors:  K Nestler; T Gradistanac; C Wittekind
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 6.  [Autopsy-a procedure of medical history?].

Authors:  K Petros; C Wittekind
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2013-02-17       Impact factor: 0.840

7.  [Autopsy rates in Germany].

Authors:  M Grassow-Narlik; M Wessolly; J Friemann
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.011

8.  [Adult autopsies during the past decade in Germany : Data from two university hospitals].

Authors:  F Erlmeier; W Weichert; R Knüchel; J Andruszkow
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.011

9.  Who is at risk for diagnostic discrepancies? Comparison of pre- and postmortal diagnoses in 1800 patients of 3 medical decades in East and West Berlin.

Authors:  Daniel Wittschieber; Frederick Klauschen; Anna-Christin Kimmritz; Moritz von Winterfeld; Carsten Kamphues; Hans-Joachim Scholman; Andreas Erbersdobler; Heidi Pfeiffer; Carsten Denkert; Manfred Dietel; Wilko Weichert; Jan Budczies; Albrecht Stenzinger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.