Literature DB >> 24871149

Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) screening for sepsis in surgical mortalities.

Rajesh Ramanathan1, Patricia Leavell, Gregory Stockslager, Catherine Mays, Dale Harvey, Therese M Duane.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is among the leading causes of death in the United States. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality uses International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) billing code screening for the identification of sepsis. We investigated the incidence of sepsis in mortality at our academic medical center through ICD-9-CM screening of billing codes corresponding to sepsis and compared this approach for accuracy using physician chart review as the gold-standard.
METHODS: Two hundred forty-three surgical mortalities between January 2012 and January 2013 were reviewed by a Performance Improvement team. All mortalities were screened and evaluated for sepsis using physician chart review and ICD-9-CM codes for sepsis (995.91), severe sepsis (995.92), and septic shock (785.52).
RESULTS: Unexpected mortalities were associated with higher rates of sepsis and expected mortalities than anticipated (p<0.0001). A total of 40.6% of patients with sepsis suffered from more than one infection; the most common infectious sources were intra-abdominal (43.5%), blood stream (40.3%), and pulmonary (38.7%) infections. Screening by ICD-9-CM identified sepsis in 23.0% of mortalities, and physician review identified sepsis in 25.5% of mortalities. The sensitivity and specificity of ICD-9-CM screening were 82.3% and 78.3%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 91.1% and 62.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Sepsis is a common concurrent condition in surgical patients who die unexpectedly. Screening by ICD-9-CM for sepsis is accurate in identifying patients with sepsis but misses the identification of all patients with sepsis. The diagnostic accuracy of ICD-9-CM screening for sepsis is currently not adequate for public reporting or benchmarking, and is useful only as a guide for institutional quality improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24871149     DOI: 10.1089/sur.2013.089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1096-2964            Impact factor:   2.150


  7 in total

1.  Data integration of structured and unstructured sources for assigning clinical codes to patient stays.

Authors:  Elyne Scheurwegs; Kim Luyckx; Léon Luyten; Walter Daelemans; Tim Van den Bulcke
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Predictors of Short-Term Readmission After Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Rajesh Ramanathan; Travis Mason; Luke G Wolfe; Brian J Kaplan
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Preoperative Biliary Drainage Is Associated with Increased Complications After Liver Resection for Proximal Cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Rajesh Ramanathan; Jeffrey Borrebach; Samer Tohme; Allan Tsung
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Signatures of Subacute Potentially Catastrophic Illness in the ICU: Model Development and Validation.

Authors:  Travis J Moss; Douglas E Lake; J Forrest Calland; Kyle B Enfield; John B Delos; Karen D Fairchild; J Randall Moorman
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Azithromycin use and outcomes in severe sepsis patients with and without pneumonia.

Authors:  Majid Afshar; Clayton L Foster; Jennifer E Layden; Ellen L Burnham
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.425

Review 6.  Validity of administrative data in recording sepsis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rachel J Jolley; Keri Jo Sawka; Dean W Yergens; Hude Quan; Nathalie Jetté; Christopher J Doig
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Validation and optimisation of an ICD-10-coded case definition for sepsis using administrative health data.

Authors:  Rachel J Jolley; Hude Quan; Nathalie Jetté; Keri Jo Sawka; Lucy Diep; Jade Goliath; Derek J Roberts; Bryan G Yipp; Christopher J Doig
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.