The Use of the Diagnosis Related Groups: A Proposition

  • F. Fleurette
  • M. Fieschi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics book series (LNMED, volume 40)

Resume

The Introduction in FRANCE of a new indicator for hospital activity (the Diagnosis Related Groups : DRGs) was reviewed both about it abilities and aims. Given the situation and having worked of this project, we present a study about the validity of such an indicator and propose a way to use it. First we were working about the economic validity of the DRGs: we have studied the medications and acts consumptions in four DRGs in order to have a idea about their homogeneities. Then we went on analysing the DRGs concerning their description of medical activity commonly recognized as bad. Starting from a group of patients, we propose a method of amelioration based on a better description of the most important problems between admission and discharge, clinical as well as concerning organization. That method might have a future development in medical evaluation giving first a better description of the diagnostics and therapies on a technical and strategic point of view.

Keys Words

Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) Economic value of DRGs Medical meaning of DRGs Improvment of the description in DRGs Utilization review — Quality assurance Medical evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1-.
    Fetter RB, Shin Y, Freeman JL, Averill RF, Thompson JD, Case mix definition by diagnosis related groups, Medical care 1980, Feb 17 suppGoogle Scholar
  2. 2-.
    Fetter RB, Mills RE, Riedel DC, Thompson JD, The application of diagnostic specific cost profiles to cost and reimbursement control in Hospitals, Journal of Medical System I, 2, 1977Google Scholar
  3. 3-.
    Fleurette F., The Diagnosis Related Groups : a study of their validity and a proposition of using. About two groups of pathologies, Medical Thesis 1990Google Scholar
  4. 4-.
    Bremond M, Kitous B, Le double saut du PMSI: formulation d’une hypothöse, Rapport final du Groupe IMAGE, 1989Google Scholar
  5. 5-.
    Pacaud F, Schenker L, DRG : perspectives d’utilisation, MASSON 1989Google Scholar
  6. 6-.
    Kenneth R, Maccrimmon, Charles AR, An analytical Study of the PERT assumptions, Operations research Vol 12, Ní1, P16–37Google Scholar
  7. 7-.
    Fleurette F, Capobianco C, Botti G, Fieschi M, Une approche m6dicalis6e de la dur6e moyenne de säjour, Journees francophones d’lnformatique M6dicale, Nîmes 1990Google Scholar
  8. 8-.
    Giraud A, Le Systéme FETTER ou la definition du produit hospitalier par DRG (II) Journal d’Economie Medicale 1985 T3Google Scholar
  9. 9-.
    Anastassy C et coll, Les groupes de diagnostiques analogues de FETTER : vers une endoscopie des coüts, Les cahiers de gestions hospitaliAres N°28 1982, P 536–550Google Scholar
  10. 10-.
    Aronow DB. Severity-of-illness Measurement: Applications in Quality assurance and Utilization Review. Medical Care Review 1988; 45:339–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Fleurette
    • 1
  • M. Fieschi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical InformationHospital LA CONCEPTIONMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations