BACKGROUND: Most U.S. hospitals publicly report 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates for pneumonia. Rates exclude severe cases, which may be assigned a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia and a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure. By assigning sepsis and respiratory failure codes more liberally, hospitals might improve their reported performance. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of the definition of pneumonia on hospital mortality rates. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: 329 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized for pneumonia (as a principal diagnosis or secondary diagnosis paired with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure) between 2007 and 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients with pneumonia coded with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure and risk-standardized mortality rates excluding versus including a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure. RESULTS: When the definition of pneumonia was limited to patients with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia, the risk-standardized mortality rate was significantly better than the mean in 4.3% of hospitals and significantly worse in 6.4%. When the definition was broadened to include patients with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure, this rate was better than the mean in 11.9% of hospitals and worse in 22.8% and the outlier status of 28.3% of hospitals changed. Among hospitals in the highest quintile of proportion of patients coded with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure, outlier status under the broader definition improved in 7.6% and worsened in 40.9%. Among those in the lowest quintile, 20.0% improved and none worsened. LIMITATION: Only inpatient mortality was studied. CONCLUSION: Variation in use of the principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure may bias efforts to compare hospital performance regarding pneumonia outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
BACKGROUND: Most U.S. hospitals publicly report 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates for pneumonia. Rates exclude severe cases, which may be assigned a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia and a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure. By assigning sepsis and respiratory failure codes more liberally, hospitals might improve their reported performance. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of the definition of pneumonia on hospital mortality rates. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: 329 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized for pneumonia (as a principal diagnosis or secondary diagnosis paired with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure) between 2007 and 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients with pneumonia coded with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure and risk-standardized mortality rates excluding versus including a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure. RESULTS: When the definition of pneumonia was limited to patients with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia, the risk-standardized mortality rate was significantly better than the mean in 4.3% of hospitals and significantly worse in 6.4%. When the definition was broadened to include patients with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure, this rate was better than the mean in 11.9% of hospitals and worse in 22.8% and the outlier status of 28.3% of hospitals changed. Among hospitals in the highest quintile of proportion of patients coded with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure, outlier status under the broader definition improved in 7.6% and worsened in 40.9%. Among those in the lowest quintile, 20.0% improved and none worsened. LIMITATION: Only inpatient mortality was studied. CONCLUSION: Variation in use of the principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure may bias efforts to compare hospital performance regarding pneumonia outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Authors: Walter H Ettinger; Sharon M Hylka; Robert A Phillips; Lynn H Harrison; Jay A Cyr; Andrew J Sussman Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Elizabeth E Drye; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Yun Wang; Joseph S Ross; Geoffrey C Schreiner; Lein Han; Michael Rapp; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Peter K Lindenauer; Penelope Pekow; Shan Gao; Allison S Crawford; Benjamin Gutierrez; Evan M Benjamin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dale W Bratzler; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Yun Wang; Walter J O'Donnell; Mark Metersky; Lein F Han; Michael T Rapp; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Allan J Walkey; Janice Weinberg; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Colin R Cooke; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Tiffanie K Jones; Barry D Fuchs; Dylan S Small; Scott D Halpern; Asaf Hanish; Craig A Umscheid; Charles A Baillie; Meeta Prasad Kerlin; David F Gaieski; Mark E Mikkelsen Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2015-06
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Zilu Zhang; Sameer S Kadri; David J Murphy; Greg S Martin; Elizabeth Overton; Christopher W Seymour; Derek C Angus; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; David Fram; Richard Schaaf; Rui Wang; Michael Klompas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Michael W Sjoding; Hallie C Prescott; Hannah Wunsch; Theodore J Iwashyna; Colin R Cooke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; David J Murphy; Christopher W Seymour; Theodore J Iwashyna; Sameer S Kadri; Derek C Angus; Robert L Danner; Anthony E Fiore; John A Jernigan; Greg S Martin; Edward Septimus; David K Warren; Anita Karcz; Christina Chan; John T Menchaca; Rui Wang; Susan Gruber; Michael Klompas Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272