These newly developed ICD-10 and ICD-9-CM comorbidity coding algorithms produce similar estimates of comorbidity prevalence in administrative data, and may outperform existing ICD-9-CM coding algorithms.

With advances in the effectiveness of treatment and disease management, the contribution of chronic comorbid diseases (comorbidities) found within the Charlson comorbidity index to mortality is likely to have changed since development of the index in 1984. The authors reevaluated the Charlson index and reassigned weights to each condition by identifying and following patients to observe mortality within 1 year after hospital discharge. They applied the updated index and weights to hospital discharge data from 6 countries and tested for their ability to predict in-hospital mortality. Compared with the original Charlson weights, weights generated from the Calgary, Alberta, Canada, data (2004) were 0 for 5 comorbidities, decreased for 3 comorbidities, increased for 4 comorbidities, and did not change for 5 comorbidities. The C statistics for discriminating in-hospital mortality between the new score generated from the 12 comorbidities and the Charlson score were 0.825 (new) and 0.808 (old), respectively, in Australian data (2008), 0.828 and 0.825 in Canadian data (2008), 0.878 and 0.882 in French data (2004), 0.727 and 0.723 in Japanese data (2008), 0.831 and 0.836 in New Zealand data (2008), and 0.869 and 0.876 in Swiss data (2008). The updated index of 12 comorbidities showed good-to-excellent discrimination in predicting in-hospital mortality in data from 6 countries and may be more appropriate for use with more recent administrative data.

No abstract

When analyzing administrative data, the Elixhauser comorbidity system can be condensed to a single numeric score that summarizes disease burden and is adequately discriminative for death in hospital.

The validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions was generally similar though validity differed between coding versions for some conditions. The implementation of ICD-10 coding has not significantly improved the quality of administrative data relative to ICD-9-CM. Future assessments like this one are needed because the validity of ICD-10 data may get better as coders gain experience with the new coding system.

BackgroundGlobally, health‐care systems and organizations are looking to improve health system performance through the implementation of a person‐centred care (PCC) model. While numerous conceptual frameworks for PCC exist, a gap remains in practical guidance on PCC implementation.MethodsBased on a narrative review of the PCC literature, a generic conceptual framework was developed in collaboration with a patient partner, which synthesizes evidence, recommendations and best practice from existing frameworks and implementation case studies. The Donabedian model for health‐care improvement was used to classify PCC domains into the categories of “Structure,” “Process” and “Outcome” for health‐care quality improvement.DiscussionThe framework emphasizes the structural domain, which relates to the health‐care system or context in which care is delivered, providing the foundation for PCC, and influencing the processes and outcomes of care. Structural domains identified include: the creation of a PCC culture across the continuum of care; co‐designing educational programs, as well as health promotion and prevention programs with patients; providing a supportive and accommodating environment; and developing and integrating structures to support health information technology and to measure and monitor PCC performance. Process domains describe the importance of cultivating communication and respectful and compassionate care; engaging patients in managing their care; and integration of care. Outcome domains identified include: access to care and Patient‐Reported Outcomes.ConclusionThis conceptual framework provides a step‐wise roadmap to guide health‐care systems and organizations in the provision PCC across various health‐care sectors.

BackgroundSurvey research in healthcare is an important tool to collect information about healthcare delivery, service use and overall issues relating to quality of care. Unfortunately, physicians are often a group with low survey response rates and little research has looked at response rates among physician specialists. For these reasons, the purpose of this project was to explore survey response rates among physician specialists in a large metropolitan Canadian city.MethodsAs part of a larger project to look at physician payment plans, an online survey about medical billing practices was distributed to 904 physicians from various medical specialties. The primary method for physicians to complete the survey was via the Internet using a well-known and established survey company (www.surveymonkey.com). Multiple methods were used to encourage survey response such as individual personalized email invitations, multiple reminders, and a draw for three gift certificate prizes were used to increase response rate. Descriptive statistics were used to assess response rates and reasons for non-response.ResultsOverall survey response rate was 35.0%. Response rates varied by specialty: Neurology/neurosurgery (46.6%); internal medicine (42.9%); general surgery (29.6%); pediatrics (29.2%); and psychiatry (27.1%). Non-respondents listed lack of time/survey burden as the main reason for not responding to our survey.ConclusionsOur survey results provide a look into the challenges of collecting healthcare research where response rates to surveys are often low. The findings presented here should help researchers in planning future survey based studies. Findings from this study and others suggest smaller monetary incentives for each individual may be a more appropriate way to increase response rates.

Administrative data generally agree with patient chart data for recording of comorbidities although comorbidities tend to be under-reported in administrative data. The ability to predict in-hospital mortality is less reliable for some of the individual comorbidities than it is for the summarized Charlson index scores in administrative data.