Nancy Chescheir1, Laura Meints. 1. From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess consistency of hospital coding for patients with cesarean delivery-related admissions. METHODS: Hospital coders from 11 participating institutions received a brief questionnaire and a standardized, inpatient record that was developed for nine hypothetical patients who delivered by cesarean delivery. They were asked to assign a diagnosis-related group (DRG) for each case and to submit the DRG, assigned International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes, and any relevant Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology Coding System codes used in their coding for each case. These responses were analyzed by mean analysis and analysis of variance tests to evaluate variation in coding practices submitted. RESULTS: Each participating academic hospital has a level III nursery, takes maternal transports, and has a residency and maternal-fetal medicine staff. Consensus in DRG coding was found in only two thirds of cases. Variation in use of ICD-9 codes existed, with 13.7% of ICD-9 codes assigned by all of the coding departments and 24.2% of ICD-9 codes uniquely used by a single institution. Variation in use of Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology Coding System codes also occurred, with 16.3% of the procedure codes used in the same case by all institutions and 28.6% used by a single institution. CONCLUSION: Documenting providers, coders, and institutions should exercise caution in the use of DRG codes, procedure codes, and ICD-9 codes for cesarean deliveries. The variability noted reflects the difficulty of the coding process and judgments that need to be made by the coders in assigning the codes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
OBJECTIVE: To assess consistency of hospital coding for patients with cesarean delivery-related admissions. METHODS: Hospital coders from 11 participating institutions received a brief questionnaire and a standardized, inpatient record that was developed for nine hypothetical patients who delivered by cesarean delivery. They were asked to assign a diagnosis-related group (DRG) for each case and to submit the DRG, assigned International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes, and any relevant Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology Coding System codes used in their coding for each case. These responses were analyzed by mean analysis and analysis of variance tests to evaluate variation in coding practices submitted. RESULTS: Each participating academic hospital has a level III nursery, takes maternal transports, and has a residency and maternal-fetal medicine staff. Consensus in DRG coding was found in only two thirds of cases. Variation in use of ICD-9 codes existed, with 13.7% of ICD-9 codes assigned by all of the coding departments and 24.2% of ICD-9 codes uniquely used by a single institution. Variation in use of Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology Coding System codes also occurred, with 16.3% of the procedure codes used in the same case by all institutions and 28.6% used by a single institution. CONCLUSION: Documenting providers, coders, and institutions should exercise caution in the use of DRG codes, procedure codes, and ICD-9 codes for cesarean deliveries. The variability noted reflects the difficulty of the coding process and judgments that need to be made by the coders in assigning the codes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Gianpaolo Maso; Monica Piccoli; Marcella Montico; Lorenzo Monasta; Luca Ronfani; Sara Parolin; Carmine Gigli; Daniele Domini; Claudio Fiscella; Sara Casarsa; Carlo Zompicchiatti; Michela De Agostini; Attilio D'Atri; Raffaela Mugittu; Santo La Valle; Cristina Di Leonardo; Valter Adamo; Mara Fracas; Giovanni Del Frate; Monica Olivuzzi; Silvio Giove; Maria Parente; Daniele Bassini; Simona Melazzini; Secondo Guaschino; Caterina Businelli; Franco G Toffoletti; Diego Marchesoni; Alberto Rossi; Sergio Demarini; Laura Travan; Giorgio Simon; Sandro Zicari; Giorgio Tamburlini; Salvatore Alberico Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Dorian Culié; Renaud Schiappa; Sara Contu; Boris Scheller; Agathe Villarme; Olivier Dassonville; Gilles Poissonnet; Alexandre Bozec; Emmanuel Chamorey Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Gianpaolo Maso; Salvatore Alberico; Lorenzo Monasta; Luca Ronfani; Marcella Montico; Caterina Businelli; Valentina Soini; Monica Piccoli; Carmine Gigli; Daniele Domini; Claudio Fiscella; Sara Casarsa; Carlo Zompicchiatti; Michela De Agostinis; Attilio D'Atri; Raffaela Mugittu; Santo La Valle; Cristina Di Leonardo; Valter Adamo; Silvia Smiroldo; Giovanni Del Frate; Monica Olivuzzi; Silvio Giove; Maria Parente; Daniele Bassini; Simona Melazzini; Secondo Guaschino; Francesco De Seta; Sergio Demarini; Laura Travan; Diego Marchesoni; Alberto Rossi; Giorgio Simon; Sandro Zicari; Giorgio Tamburlini Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 3.240