首页> 外文会议>Belgian e-Health Conference >Classifying Clinical Pathways
【24h】

Classifying Clinical Pathways

机译:分类临床途径

获取原文

摘要

Background: Clinical pathways are commonly developed for homogenous patient groups. We were wondering if the traditional patient classification systems could be used for classifying clinical pathways.Methodology: To examine the utility of patient classification systems for clinical pathways, a sample of 13 clinical pathways was analyzed, involving a total of 412 patients. Three classification systems were tested: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD9-CM), Clinical Coding System (CCS) data and All-Patient Redefined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG).Results: Categorization with ICD9-CM and CCS shows rather wide variation. However, when restricting for the principal codes, CCS classification shows an almost homogeneous relationship with clinical pathways. APR-DRG's are already corrected for secondary procedures and are difficult to assess. Categorization with the Risk Of Mortality (ROM) is more homogeneous than with the Severity Of Illness (SOI).Conclusion: Patient groups in clinical pathways are rather heterogeneous. When restricting for the principal procedures, the strongest relationship seems to exist between clinical pathways and CCS. Further research is needed to refine this relationship.
机译:背景:常见的患者组通常开发临床途径。我们想知道传统的患者分类系统是否可用于分类临床途径。方法:检查患者分类系统的临床途径的效用,分析了13例临床途径的样品,共有412名患者。测试了三种分类系统:国际疾病分类,第九修订(ICD9-CM),临床编码系统(CCS)数据和全患者重新定义诊断相关组(APR-DRG)。结果:与ICD9-CM和CCS分类变化相当宽阔。然而,当限制主码时,CCS分类显示与临床途径几乎均匀的关系。 APR-DRG已经纠正了二级程序,很难评估。随着死亡率的风险(ROM)的分类比具有疾病的严重程度更均匀(SOI)。结论:临床途径中的患者组是相当异质的。在限制主要程序时,临床途径和CCS之间的最强烈关系似乎存在。需要进一步研究来改进这种关系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号