Day surgery DRGs for doctors only
|Target version:||Expert Group 2016|
|MDC:||GEN||Owner / responsible:|
|Target Grouper:||SWE||Old forum status:|
We have noticed that some health personal don’t know the national rules for coding of control visits. They register the procedure that was performed during the previous contact instead of the diagnosis that is controlled. Thus we have, for example, outpatient physiotherapist visits with hip replacements in our medical registers, which of course is totally wrong.
NPK ID C384, Sweden – 2016-01-28
We have discussed different ways to solve the problem. One way is to delete day surgery DRGs that are impossible and this has been done for a few DRGs (see NCC Case #276).
Another way to diminish the problem is to add that it must be a doctor visit to get a day surgery DRG. This demands a very thorough and time consuming analysis, however, since it becomes more frequent that specially trained nurses are doing OR procedures. Therefore, to begin with, we have chosen to restrict DRGs to doctor visits:
In the Drglogic table, the rules for day surgery DRGs that demand a procpro value denoted as “extensive” in the proc prop table are restricted to doctor visits by adding a new diagnosis property, 99X35 (Medical doctor) in the first empty dgprop field. (The existing procedure property 99V35 ‘Medical doctor’ cannot be used since the secproc field already is occupied in some rules.)
This can be seen as a first step to reduce the problem and in the future we can perhaps analyze the other day surgery groups.
NPK, Sweden – 2016-01-28
To reduce the number of erroneous day surgery registrations we suggest that day surgery DRG rules with procedures defined as “extensive” are restricted to doctor visits in NordDRG 2017. Then 44 rules in the Drglogic table has to be changed by adding a new diagnosis property, 99X35 (Medical doctor) in the first empty dgprop field. See Suggestion CPK ID 384.xls for details. The DRG change will be minor.
#4 Updated by Martti Virtanen over 5 years ago
2016-03-09 Nordcase - Martti Virtanen
The proposal would obviously only apply for the Swedish version, creating another bulk of differences to the logic.
The falsely coded cases would end up in the group 477O/Z60O which is not acceptable for the hospitals and they would certainly improve their coding. This fact makes this yet another example of trying to learn people to code through DRG, which we do not have a good record on.
Otherwise the proposal can be performed for the Swedish version.
#5 Updated by Mats Fernström over 5 years ago
- File Decision CPK ID C384.xls added
Mats Fernström, NPK, Sweden, 2016-03-17
This case was discussed at the Expert Network meeting 2016-03-14 – 15 and accepted for change in SWE version but the ORD value for the new rules must not be the same as the deleted rules. This is now fixed in the attached file Decision CPK ID C384.xls.
#6 Updated by Martti Virtanen over 5 years ago
2016-03-15 Expert group (MV)
This case was accepted by the expert group for Swedish use. The information about doctors participation is not available in other countries and this type of rule is therefore not applicable.
Since other version will retain the old rules the new rules should have different coding as shown int the latest version of the proposal.
The document from Sweden is vali as technical changes documentation. The correspond code for medical doctor in NCSP+ is ZZ2221.