Advertisement

A Clustering-Based Patient Grouper for Burn Care

  • Chimdimma Noelyn OnahEmail author
  • Richard Allmendinger
  • Julia Handl
  • Paraskevas Yiapanis
  • Ken W. Dunn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11872)

Abstract

Patient casemix is a system of defining groups of patients. For reimbursement purposes, these groups should be clinically meaningful and share similar resource usage during their hospital stay. In the UK National Health Service (NHS) these groups are known as health resource groups (HRGs), and are predominantly derived based on expert advice and checked for homogeneity afterwards, typically using length of stay (LOS) to assess similarity in resource consumption. LOS does not fully capture the actual resource usage of patients, and assurances on the accuracy of HRG as a basis of payment rate derivation are therefore difficult to give. Also, with complex patient groups such as those encountered in burn care, expert advice will often reflect average patients only, therefore not capturing the complexity and severity of many patients’ injury profile. The data-driven development of a grouper may support the identification of features and segments that more accurately account for patient complexity and resource use. In this paper, we describe the development of such a grouper using established techniques for dimensionality reduction and cluster analysis. We argue that a data-driven approach minimises bias in feature selection. Using a registry of patients from 23 burn services in England and Wales, we demonstrate a reduction of within cluster cost-variation in the identified groups, when compared to the original casemix.

Keywords

Patient casemix Clustering Data driven 

References

  1. 1.
    Hopfe, M., Stucki, G., Marshall, R., Twomey, C.D., Üstün, T.B., Prodinger, B.: Capturing patients’ needs in casemix: a systematic literature review on the value of adding functioning information in reimbursement systems. BMC Health Serv. Res. 16(1), 40 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jegers, M., Kesteloot, K., De Graeve, D., Gilles, W.: A typology for provider payment systems in health care. Health Pol. (New York) 60(3), 255–273 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mathauer, I., Wittenbecher, F.: Hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups: experiences in low- and middle-income countries. Bull. World Health Organ. 91(10), 746–756A (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fischer, W.: The DRG Family: State of affairs (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Street, A., Kobel, C., Renaud, T., Thuilliez, J.: How well do diagnosis- related groups explain variations in costs or length of stay among patients and across hospitals? methods for analysing routine patient data. Health Econ. 21, 6–18 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sembiring, R.W., Zain, J.M., Embong, A.: Dimension reduction of health data clustering. Int. J. New Comput. Archit. Appl. 1(3), 1041–1050 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Burn Care Review Committee, National Burn Care Review Committee Report Standards and Strategy for Burn Care A Review of Burn Care in The British Isles Contents (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pedregosa, F., et al.: Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825–2830 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chimdimma Noelyn Onah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard Allmendinger
    • 1
  • Julia Handl
    • 1
  • Paraskevas Yiapanis
    • 2
  • Ken W. Dunn
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Medical Data Solutions and ServicesManchesterUK
  3. 3.University Hospital South ManchesterWythenshaweUK

Personalised recommendations