BACKGROUND: States, including Illinois, have passed legislation mandating the use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for reporting healthcare-associated infections, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of ICD-9-CM code combinations for detection of MRSA infection and to understand implications for reporting. METHODS: We reviewed discharge and microbiology databases from July through August of 2005, 2006, and 2007 for ICD-9-CM codes or microbiology results suggesting MRSA infection at a tertiary care hospital near Chicago, Illinois. Medical records were reviewed to confirm MRSA infection. Time from admission to first positive MRSA culture result was evaluated to identify hospital-onset MRSA (HO-MRSA) infections. The sensitivity of MRSA code combinations for detecting confirmed MRSA infections was calculated using all codes present in the discharge record (up to 15); the effect of reviewing only 9 diagnosis codes, the number reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was also evaluated. The sensitivity of the combination of diagnosis codes for detection of HO-MRSA infections was compared with that for community-onset MRSA (CO-MRSA) infections. RESULTS: We identified 571 potential MRSA infections with the use of screening criteria; 403 (71%) were confirmed MRSA infections, of which 61 (15%) were classified as HO-MRSA. The sensitivity of MRSA code combinations was 59% for all confirmed MRSA infections when 15 diagnoses were reviewed compared with 31% if only 9 diagnoses were reviewed (P < .001). The sensitivity of code combinations was 33% for HO-MRSA infections compared with 62% for CO-MRSA infections (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Limiting analysis to 9 diagnosis codes resulted in low sensitivity. Furthermore, code combinations were better at revealing CO-MRSA infections than HO-MRSA infections. These limitations could compromise the validity of ICD-9-CM codes for interfacility comparisons and for reporting of healthcare-associated MRSA infections.
BACKGROUND: States, including Illinois, have passed legislation mandating the use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for reporting healthcare-associated infections, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of ICD-9-CM code combinations for detection of MRSA infection and to understand implications for reporting. METHODS: We reviewed discharge and microbiology databases from July through August of 2005, 2006, and 2007 for ICD-9-CM codes or microbiology results suggesting MRSA infection at a tertiary care hospital near Chicago, Illinois. Medical records were reviewed to confirm MRSA infection. Time from admission to first positive MRSA culture result was evaluated to identify hospital-onset MRSA (HO-MRSA) infections. The sensitivity of MRSA code combinations for detecting confirmed MRSA infections was calculated using all codes present in the discharge record (up to 15); the effect of reviewing only 9 diagnosis codes, the number reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was also evaluated. The sensitivity of the combination of diagnosis codes for detection of HO-MRSA infections was compared with that for community-onset MRSA (CO-MRSA) infections. RESULTS: We identified 571 potential MRSA infections with the use of screening criteria; 403 (71%) were confirmed MRSA infections, of which 61 (15%) were classified as HO-MRSA. The sensitivity of MRSA code combinations was 59% for all confirmed MRSA infections when 15 diagnoses were reviewed compared with 31% if only 9 diagnoses were reviewed (P < .001). The sensitivity of code combinations was 33% for HO-MRSA infections compared with 62% for CO-MRSA infections (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Limiting analysis to 9 diagnosis codes resulted in low sensitivity. Furthermore, code combinations were better at revealing CO-MRSA infections than HO-MRSA infections. These limitations could compromise the validity of ICD-9-CM codes for interfacility comparisons and for reporting of healthcare-associated MRSA infections.
Authors: N Thomas; H J Rutz; S A Hook; A F Hinckley; G Lukacik; B P Backenson; K A Feldman; J L White Journal: Zoonoses Public Health Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 2.702
Authors: Ashley N Rose; Paula Clogher; Kelly M Hatfield; Runa H Gokhale; Isaac See; Susan Petit Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Michihiko Goto; Marin L Schweizer; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Eli N Perencevich; Daniel J Livorsi; Daniel J Diekema; Kelly K Richardson; Brice F Beck; Bruce Alexander; Michael E Ohl Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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: Michael Z David; Sofia Medvedev; Samuel F Hohmann; Bernard Ewigman; Robert S Daum Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 3.254
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