Jessica Jacques

Assessing the causes inducing lengthening of hospital stays by means of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol.

OBJECTIVES The objective is to evaluate the use of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) as a screening tool for determining the causes of the non-justified days to help hospitals to decrease the length of stay while preserving the quality of care. METHODS Three successive cross-sectional surveys were conducted from 2003 till 2005, in 23 Belgian hospitals. During this period, 10921 days were audited by means of the AEP. This study is focused on adult acute non-intensive care units. The appropriateness of each day of the sample was assessed, and for those considered as inappropriate, the reasons explaining the prolongation of the stay were investigated. RESULTS The proportion of inappropriate days was 24.61%. There is a high variability across specialties and hospitals. Regarding inappropriate days, the analysis of causes of prolongation, globally, by bed index or by hospital, indicated clearly internal and external factors that lengthen stays. The most frequent reasons are waits for an examination (22%) and the lack of extra-hospital structures (31%). CONCLUSIONS The use of AEP as a tool of internal audit to measure the proportion of non-justified days and their causes turns out to be possible and the obtained results has provided some accurate and useful information for the participating, and allowed them to take concrete decisions which lead to shrinking of the length of hospital stay.

Validation of Hospital Administrative Dataset for adverse event screening

Objective To assess whether the Belgian Hospital Discharge Dataset (B-HDDS) is a valid source for the detection of adverse events in acute hospitals. Design, setting and participants Retrospective review of 1515 patient records in eight acute Belgian hospitals for the year 2005. Main outcome measures Predictive value of the B-HDDS and medical record reviews and degree of correspondence between the B-HDDS and medical record reviews for five indicators: pressure ulcer, postoperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis, postoperative sepsis, ventilator-associated pneumonia and postoperative wound infection. Results Postoperative wound infection received the highest positive predictive value (62.3%), whereas postoperative sepsis and ventilator-associated pneumonia were rated as only 44.2% and 29.9% respectively. Excluding present on admission from the screening substantially decreased the positive predictive value of pressure ulcer from 74.5% to 54.3%, as pressure ulcers present on admission were responsible for more B-HDDS-medical record mismatches than any other indicator. Over half (56.8%) of false-positive cases for postoperative sepsis were due to a lack of specificity of the ICD-9-CM code, whereas in 58.6% of false-positive cases for ventilator-associated pneumonia, clinical criteria appeared to be too stringent. Conclusions The B-HDDS has the potential to accurately detect some but not all adverse events. Adding a code ‘present on admission’ and improving the ICD-9-CM codes might already partially improve the correspondence between the B-HDDS and the medical record review.

Retrospective medical record evaluation: Reliability in assessing causation, preventability, and disability of adverse events

PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to assess the reliability of an in-depth analysis on causation, preventability, and disability by two separate review teams on five selected adverse events in acute hospitals: pressure ulcer, postoperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis, postoperative sepsis, ventilator-associated pneumonia and postoperative wound infection. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH The analysis uses a retrospective medical record review of 1,515 patient records by two independent teams in eight acute Belgian hospitals for the year 2005. The Mann-Whitney U-test is used to identify significant differences between the two review teams regarding occurrence of adverse events as well as regarding the degree of causation, preventability, and disability of found adverse events. FINDINGS Team 1 stated a high probability for health care management causation in 95.5 per cent of adverse events in contrast to 38.9 per cent by Team 2. Likewise, high preventability was considered in 83.1 per cent of cases by Team 1 versus 51.7 per cent by Team 2. Significant differences in degree of disability between the two teams were also found for pressure ulcers, postoperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis and postoperative wound infection, but not for postoperative sepsis and ventilator-associated pneumonia. ORIGINALITY/VALUE New insight on the degree of and reasons for the huge differences in adverse event evaluation is provided.