ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2020
The New Diagnosis-Related Group Reimbursement System and Laboratory Test Quality in Korea: Analysis of External Quality Assessment Results.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- How significant is cost-shifting behavior under the diagnosis intervention packet payment reform? Evidence from the coronary heart disease market.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Schemes and Performance Evaluation Criteria of Korean Association of External Quality Assessment (KEQAS) for Improving Laboratory Testing.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Adjusting Quality Control Chart Limits for WBC, RBC, Hb, and PLT Counts to Reduce Daily Control Risks in Hospital Laboratory.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Korea introduced a new diagnosis-related group (NDRG), which is a mixed-bundle reimbursement system. We evaluated the effects of NDRGs on laboratory test quality by analyzing data over three years (2016-2018) from the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service (KEQAS). A total of 42 NDRG-participating hospitals (CASE), 84 non-participating similar size-hospitals (CON-1), and 42 tertiary hospitals (CON-2) were included. We assumed the proportion of KEQAS results with a larger than 2 standard deviation index (SDI) to be a bad laboratory quality marker (BLQM). CASE BLQMs were lower than CON-1 BLQMs for more than 2 years in alkaline phosphatase (ALP), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), chloride, glucose, sodium, and total protein, and higher in creatinine. CASE BLQMs were higher than CON-2 BLQMs for more than 2 years in ALP, chloride, creatinine, glucose, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), phosphorus, potassium, sodium, total calcium, total cholesterol, triglyceride, and uric acid. Mean SDIs for general chemistry tests were not significantly different depending on NDRG participation. However, the NDRG is currently a pilot program that compensates the amount of each institution's reimbursement based on the fee-for-service system, and most participants were public hospitals. Thus, the effects of NDRGs on laboratory test quality should be re-evaluated after the NDRG program has stabilized and more private hospitals are participating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.