Literature DB >> 24118246

How Accurate is the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer in a National Sample of Records?

Patricia A Zrelak, Garth H Utter, Daniel J Tancredi, Lindsay Grogean Mayer, Julie Cerese, Joanne Cuny, Patrick S Romano.   

Abstract

In 2008, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to determine the test characteristics of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicator (PSI) for hospital-acquired pressure ulcer (PU). We sampled 1,995 inpatient records that met PSI 3 criteria and 4,007 records assigned to 14 DRGs with the highest empirical rates of PSI 3, which did not meet PSI 3 criteria, from 32 U.S. academic hospitals. We estimated the positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity of PSI 3 using both the software version contemporary to the hospitalizations (v3.1) and an approximation of the current version (v4.4). Of records that met PSI 3 version 3.1 criteria, 572 (PPV 28.3%; 95% CI 23.6-32.9%) were true positive. PU that was present on admission (POA) accounted for 76% of the false-positive records. Estimated sensitivity was 48.2% (95% CI 41.0-55.3%) and specificity 71.4% (95% CI 68.3-74.5%). Reclassifying records based on reported POA information and PU stage to approximate version 4.4 of PSI 3 improved sensitivity (78.6%; 95% CI 62.7-94.5%) and specificity (98.0; 95% CI 97.1-98.9%). In conclusion, accounting for POA information and PU staging to approximate newer versions of the PSI software (v4.3) moderately improves validity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 24118246     DOI: 10.1111/jhq.12052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Healthc Qual        ISSN: 1062-2551            Impact factor:   1.095


  6 in total

1.  Patient-specific factors associated with pressure injuries revealed by electronic health record analyses.

Authors:  Megan W Miller; Rebecca T Emeny; Jennifer A Snide; Gary L Freed
Journal:  Health Informatics J       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Consistency of pressure injury documentation across interfacility transfers.

Authors:  Lee Squitieri; David A Ganz; Carol M Mangione; Jack Needleman; Patrick S Romano; Debra Saliba; Clifford Y Ko; Daniel A Waxman
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  Machine Learning Approaches for Hospital Acquired Pressure Injuries: A Retrospective Study of Electronic Medical Records.

Authors:  Joshua J Levy; Jorge F Lima; Megan W Miller; Gary L Freed; A James O'Malley; Rebecca T Emeny
Journal:  Front Med Technol       Date:  2022-06-16

4.  Evaluation of the Present-on-Admission Indicator among Hospitalized Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients with a Pressure Ulcer Diagnosis: Coding Patterns and Impact on Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Rates.

Authors:  Lee Squitieri; Daniel A Waxman; Carol M Mangione; Debra Saliba; Clifford Y Ko; Jack Needleman; David A Ganz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Burden of Geriatric Events Among Older Adults Undergoing Major Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Hung-Jui Tan; Debra Saliba; Lorna Kwan; Alison A Moore; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Enhanced Quality Measurement Event Detection: An Application to Physician Reporting.

Authors:  Suzanne R Tamang; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Elsie Gyang Ross; Gregory Gaskin; Manali I Patel; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2017-05-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.