ArticleBMC health services research2024
Accuracy assessment of patient safety incident (PSI) codes and present-on-admission (POA) indicators: a cross-sectional analysis using the Patient Safety Incidents Inquiry (PSII) in Korea.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmong the various methods used, administrative data collected for claims and billing purposes, such as diagnosis codes and present-on-admission (POA) indicators, can easily be employed to assess patient safety status. However, it is crucial that administrative data be accurate to generate valid estimates of adverse event (AE) occurrence. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of diagnosis codes and POA indicators in patients with confirmed AEs in the hospital admission setting.
methodsWe analysed the diagnosis codes of 1,032 confirmed AE cases and 6,754 non-AE cases from the 2019 Patient Safety Incidents Inquiry, which was designed as a cross-sectional study, to determine their alignment with the Korean Patient Safety Incidents (PSIs) Code Classification System. The unit of analysis was the individual case rather than the patient, because two or more AEs may occur in one patient. We examined whether the primary and secondary diagnostic codes had PSIs codes matching the AE type and checked each PSI code for whether the POA indicator had an 'N' tag. We reviewed the presence of PSI codes in patients without identified AEs and calculated the correlation between the AE incidence rate and PSI code and POA indicator accuracy across 15 hospitals.
resultsNinety (8.7%) of the AE cases had PSI codes with an 'N' tag on the POA indicator compared to 294 (4.4%) of the non-AE cases. Infection- (20.4%) and surgery/procedure-related AEs (13.6%) had relatively higher instances of correctly tagged PSI codes. We did not identify any PSI codes for diagnosis-related incidents. While we noted significant differences in AE incidence rates, PSI code accuracy, and POA indicator accuracy among the hospitals, the correlations between these variables were not statistically significant.
conclusionCurrently, PSI codes and POA indicators in South Korea appear to have low validity. To use administrative data in medical quality improvement activities such as monitoring patient safety levels, improving the accuracy of administrative data should be a priority. Possible strategies include targeted education on PSI codes and POA indicators and introduction of new evaluation indicators regarding the accuracy of administrative data.
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.