Questions and answers #460

Suggestions for a better upgrading process

Added by Anonymous over 3 years ago. Updated about 2 years ago.

Status:ActiveStart date:2016-01-28
Priority:MinorDue date:
Assignee:-Spent time:-
Category:-
Initiator:Sweden Target year:
MDC: Owner / responsible:National organisations
Target Grouper: Old forum status:

Description

Suggestions for a better upgrading process

The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare wants some rules to get a smoother upgrading process for the NordDRG system. The main objective of the rules is that all decisions about changes in the definition tables must be made at the Expert network meetings. We don’t want prolonged and time-consuming discussions per mail that will cause a delay in the production of the grouper. Change decisions that concerns only one country can of course still be made at any time by agreement between that country and the Nordic Casemix Centre.

1. Major proposal should be defined
We have different deadlines for major and minor proposals but the terms “major” and “minor” are not defined. The deadline for minor proposals is usually rather close to the Expert network spring meeting so it is hard for the other national organizations to make thorough analyses before the meeting. We suggest that proposals concerning deletion or creation of DRGs and all other proposals that need an economic analysis should be regarded as “major”. Then the risk for postponing at the meeting is less.

2. Technical changes must be included in all proposals
Detailed technical changes according to the agreed template (see Questions and answers #426) must be included in all proposals so the other national organizations can understand the proposals without doubts and easily test the changes in their own groupers. (This was agreed on some years ago but the compliance is not 100 %.)

3. Decisions at the expert spring meeting must be implemented in the planning version
The implementation of changes decided at the spring meeting must not be postponed until the production version because the planning version is really used for planning and also for calculations of the next years DRG weights, at least in Sweden. Thus, the planning version must be as upgraded as possible, even though changes in the mappings in ICD+ and CSP+ are necessary.

4. Unexpected negative effects may cause postponing of the change
Unexpected negative effects observed during the implementation of changes decided at the spring meeting must be communicated to all concerned national organizations as soon as possible. If there is a need for further economic analysis in a case and this will cause a risk for delay of the planning version, the decision must be changed to “postponed to next year for further analysis”.

5. National primary codes updates must be sent to Nordic Casemix Centre on time
We have agreed on that the national primary codes updates for the next year must be sent to the center before the end of June but the compliance to this is not 100 %. Wanted grouping properties for the new codes should be specified if possible.
6. Mapping results for the new codes must be published before the autumn meeting

The results of the mappings of the new primary codes into ICD+ and CSP+ must be sent by Nordic Casemix Centre to the national organizations in good time (two weeks) before the expert autumn meeting. The information must include the grouping properties that were obtained by the mapping. This will make it possible for the national organizations to study if the properties are as wanted and the discussion on the meeting can concentrate on the codes where the properties can be questioned and decisions to change the mapping can be made. With this method the autumn meeting must be later than today, probably in late September, but we will get rid of time-consuming discussions per mail after the meeting, so the definition tables will probably be ready somewhat earlier than today.

7. Later upgrading questions must be postponed to next spring meeting
During the mapping of the new primary codes it may be obvious that the mapping of existing codes isn’t optimal. This can be discussed at the autumn meeting but if there is a need for economic analysis, the case must be postponed to next spring meeting. Any need for changes discovered after the autumn meeting must also be postponed for discussion on the next spring meeting unless it is a serious error, but then the matter has to be discussed with concerned national organizations.

PM för att skriva Technical changes.docx (55.3 KB) Mats Fernström, 2017-02-28 17:47

How to read NordDRG definition tables.doc (70 KB) Mats Fernström, 2017-03-01 10:21

How to write technical changes for NordDRG.docx (65.1 KB) Veronika Stemme, 2017-08-16 14:44

History

#1 Updated by Mats Fernström over 2 years ago

Mats Fernström, NPK, Sweden, 2017-02-28
This issue was discussed at the spring meeting 2016 and as far as I remember there were no strong protests against these “rules of conduct” but some kind of a manual for writing technical changes was requested. I promised to make a first attempt in Swedish and then the Centre (Martti) would correct and translate into English. I sent that first version to the Center 2016-08-25 but obviously no one has had time to translate it. I have now slightly updated the document but it is still in Swedish. Maybe it is useful for some of you that understand Swedish and therefor it is attached. The rest of you have to wait for the Centre´s translation.

#3 Updated by Veronika Stemme about 2 years ago

Veronika Stemme, NPK, Sweden, 2017-08-16
I have translated the document ”PM för att skriva ‘technical changes’ för NordDRG” (by Mats Fernström) to english. The document (How to write technical changes for NordDRG) can be discussed at the expert group meeting in Stockholm 4th of September.

Also available in: Atom PDF