首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American College of Surgeons >How valid is the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator 'postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma'?
【24h】

How valid is the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator 'postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma'?

机译:AHRQ患者安全指标“术后出血或血肿”的有效性如何?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma (PHH), an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicator, uses administrative data to detect cases of potentially preventable postsurgical bleeding requiring a reparative procedure. How accurately it identifies true events is unknown. We therefore determined PHH's positive predictive value. STUDY DESIGN: Using Patient Safety Indicator software (v.3.1a) and fiscal year 2003-2007 discharge data from 28 Veterans Health Administration hospitals, we identified 112 possible cases of PHH. Based on medical record abstraction, we characterized cases as true (TPs) or false positives (FPs), calculated positive predictive value, and analyzed FPs to ascertain reasons for incorrect identification and TPs to determine PHH-associated clinical consequences and risk factors. RESULTS: Eighty-four cases were TPs (positive predictive value, 75%; 95% CI, 66-83%); 63% had a hematoma diagnosis, 30% had a hemorrhage diagnosis, 7% had both. Reasons for FPs included events present on admission (29%); hemorrhage/hematoma identified and controlled during the original procedure rather than postoperatively (21%); or postoperative hemorrhage/hematoma that did not require a procedure (18%). Most TPs (82%) returned to the operating room for hemorrhage/hematoma management; 64% required blood products and 7% died in-hospital. The most common index procedures resulting in postoperative hemorrhage/hematoma were vascular (38%); 56% were performed by a physician-in-training (under supervision). We found no substantial association between physician training status or perioperative anticoagulant use and bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: PHH's accuracy could be improved by coding enhancements, such as adopting present on admission codes or associating a timing factor with codes dealing with bleeding control. The ability of PHH to identify events representing quality of care problems requires additional evaluation.
机译:背景:术后出血或血肿(PHH)是医疗研究和质量患者安全指标的机构,它使用管理数据来检测可能需要预防的术后出血情况,需要进行修复。它如何准确地识别真实事件尚不清楚。因此,我们确定了PHH的阳性预测值。研究设计:使用患者安全指标软件(v.3.1a)和2003-2007财政年度的退伍军人卫生管理局的28家医院出院数据,我们确定了112例可能的PHH病例。基于病历摘要,我们将病例归类为真(TP)或假阳性(FP),计算出阳性预测值,并分析FP以确定不正确识别的原因和TP,以确定与PHH相关的临床后果和危险因素。结果:84例TPs(阳性预测值75%; CI 95%,66-83%)。诊断为血肿的占63%,诊断为出血的占30%,两者均占7%。计划生育的原因包括入院时发生的事件(29%);在原始手术而非手术后发现和控制的出血/血肿(21%);或不需要手术的术后出血/血肿(18%)。大多数TP(82%)返回手术室进行出血/血肿处理; 64%的患者需要血液制品,而7%的患者在医院死亡。导致术后出血/血肿的最常见指标是血管(38%)。 56%由培训医师(在监督下)进行。我们发现医师培训状态或围手术期抗凝药使用与出血风险之间没有实质联系。结论:可以通过编码增强来提高PHH的准确性,例如采用准入代码中存在的代码或将计时因子与处理出血控制的代码相关联。 PHH识别代表护理质量问题的事件的能力需要额外的评估。

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