Prevalence and Costs of Discharge Diagnoses in Inpatient General Internal Medicine: a Multi-center Cross-sectional Study
- 199 Downloads
Understanding the most common and costly conditions treated by inpatient general medical services is important for implementing quality improvement, developing health policy, conducting research, and designing medical education.
To determine the prevalence and cost of conditions treated on general internal medicine (GIM) inpatient services.
Retrospective cross-sectional study involving 7 hospital sites in Toronto, Canada.
All patients discharged between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015 who were admitted to or discharged from an inpatient GIM service.
Hospital administrative data were used to identify diagnoses and costs associated with admissions. The primary discharge diagnosis was identified for each admission and categorized into clinically relevant and mutually exclusive categories using the Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) tool.
Among 148,442 admissions, the most common primary discharge diagnoses were heart failure (5.1%), pneumonia (5.0%), urinary tract infection (4.6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.5%), and stroke (4.4%). The prevalence of the 20 most common conditions was significantly correlated across hospitals (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 0.95, p ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons). No single condition represented more than 5.1% of all admissions or more than 7.9% of admissions at any hospital site. The costliest conditions were stroke (median cost $7122, interquartile range 5587–12,354, total cost $94,199,422, representing 6.0% of all costs) and the group of delirium, dementia, and cognitive disorders (median cost $12,831, IQR 9539–17,509, total cost $77,372,541, representing 4.9% of all costs). The 10 most common conditions accounted for only 36.2% of hospitalizations and 36.8% of total costs. The remaining hospitalizations included 223 different CCS conditions.
GIM services care for a markedly heterogeneous population but the most common conditions were similar across 7 hospitals. The diversity of conditions cared for in GIM may be challenging for healthcare delivery and quality improvement. Initiatives that cut across individual diseases to address processes of care, patient experience, and functional outcomes may be more relevant to a greater proportion of the GIM population than disease-specific efforts.
KEY WORDSinternal medicine diagnoses hospitalist health services research cost
GEMINI was supported by grants from Green Shield Canada Foundation and the University of Toronto Division of General Internal Medicine.
Compliance with ethical standards
Research ethics board approval was obtained from all participating hospitals.
Some of the findings included in this manuscript were presented as a poster at the Canadian Frailty Network 2017 National Conference, April 23, 2017 in Toronto, Canada..
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 4.Soong C, Fan E, Howell EE, et al. Characteristics of hospitalists and hospitalist programs in the united states and canada. J Clin Outcomes Manag. 2009;16(2):69–74.Google Scholar
- 6.Verma AA, Guo Y, Kwan JL, et al. Patient characteristics, resource use and outcomes associated with general internal medicine hospital care: the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2017;5(4):E842-E849. doi: https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20170097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Canadian Institute for Health Information. DAD Abstracting Manual, 2015–2016 Edition. Ottawa, ON; 2015.Google Scholar
- 8.Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Beta Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for ICD-10-CM/PCS. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs10/ccs10.jsp. Published 2017. Accessed July 9, 2018.
- 9.Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Publications Using CCS. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/ccs.jsp#pubs. Published 2017. Accessed July 9, 2018.
- 10.Wodchis WP, Bushmeneva K, Nikitovic M, McKillop I. Guidelines on Person-Level Costing Using Administrative Databases in Ontario. Toronto, Ontario; 2013.Google Scholar
- 13.Snow V, Beck D, Budnitz T, et al. Transitions of Care Consensus policy statement: American College of Physicians, Society of General Internal Medicine, Society of Hospital Medicine, American Geriatrics Society, American College Of Emergency Physicians, and Society for Academic Emergency M. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(6):364–370. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Liu B, Moore JE, Almaawiy U, et al. Outcomes of Mobilisation of Vulnerable Elders in Ontario (MOVE ON): a multisite interrupted time series evaluation of an implementation intervention to increase patient mobilisation. Age Ageing. 2018;47(1):112–119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Caverzagie KJ, Cooney TG, Hemmer PA, Berkowitz L. The Development of Entrustable Professional Activities for Internal Medicine Residency Training: a Report from the Education Redesign Committee of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine. Acad Med. 2015;90(4):479–484. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000564.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar