[Implementation of diagnosis related groups in a high-complexity health institution in Colombia]. / Implementación de los Grupos relacionados de diagnóstico en una institución de salud de alta complejidad en Colombia.

BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges for health care institutions is to know the hospital product (HP), defined as patients, diagnoses and resources used in health care. Proper measurement of HP allows an effective resource management. The Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) system facilitates the measurement of HP, classifying patients according to their characteristics, complexity, and resource consumption. AIM: To describe the implementation of DRGs in a high complexity health care institution in Colombia and to describe the incidence of coding errors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A random sample of 98 episodes was selected out of 3802 episodes registered from June to September 2019. We described the cumulative incidence of errors in the assignment of main diagnoses, procedures and the variable "Present on admission" (POA). RESULTS: An incorrect assignment of the main diagnosis was found in 18/98 episodes (18%, 95% confidence intervals (CI)11-27). Seventeen of 98(17%-95% CI10.4-26) and 8/98(8%-95% CI 3.6-15) had incorrect assignment of POA ("NO" or "YES" respectively). Eighteen episodes had at least one procedure incorrectly assigned (19% - 95%CI (11.4 - 28.5)). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DRGs improves hospital efficiency. Its implementation is possible in health care institutions in Colombia. However, the commitment of the institution's clinical and administrative staff is essential.

Implementación de los Grupos relacionados de diagnóstico en una institución de salud de alta complejidad en Colombia / Implementation of diagnosis related groups in a high-complexity health institution in Colombia

BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges for health care institutions is to know the hospital product (HP), defined as patients, diagnoses and resources used in health care. Proper measurement of HP allows an effective resource management. The Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) system facilitates the measurement of HP, classifying patients according to their characteristics, complexity, and resource consumption. AIM: To describe the implementation of DRGs in a high complexity health care institution in Colombia and to describe the incidence of coding errors. Material and Methods: A random sample of 98 episodes was selected out of 3802 episodes registered from June to September 2019. We described the cumulative incidence of errors in the assignment of main diagnoses, procedures and the variable "Present on admission" (POA). RESULTS: An incorrect assignment of the main diagnosis was found in 18/98 episodes (18%, 95% confidence intervals (CI)11-27). Seventeen of 98(17%-95% CI10.4-26) and 8/98(8%-95% CI 3.6-15) had incorrect assignment of POA ("NO" or "YES" respectively). Eighteen episodes had at least one procedure incorrectly assigned (19% − 95%CI (11.4 − 28.5)). Conclusions: The use of DRGs improves hospital efficiency. Its implementation is possible in health care institutions in Colombia. However, the commitment of the institution's clinical and administrative staff is essential.

Comparison of metal artifact reduction using single-energy CT and dual-energy CT with various metallic implants in cadavers.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of metal artifact reduction using Single Energy Metal Artifact Reduction (SEMAR) and Dual Energy CT (DECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six cadavers containing metal implants in the head, neck, abdomen, pelvis, and extremities were scanned with Standard, SEMAR, and DECT protocols on a 320-slice CT scanner. Four specialized radiologists blinded to acquisition methods rated severity of metal artifacts, visualization of anatomic structures, diagnostic interpretation, and image preference with a 5-point grading scale. RESULTS: Scores were significantly better for SEMAR than Standard images in the hip, knee, pelvis, abdomen, and maxillofacial scans (3.25 ±â€¯0.88 versus 2.14 ±â€¯0.93, p < 0.001). However, new reconstruction artifacts developed in SEMAR images that were not present in Standard images. Scores for severity of metal artifacts and visualization of smooth structures were significantly better for DECT than Standard images in the cervical spine (3.50±0.50 versus 2.0±0.58, p < 0.001) and was preferred over Standard images by one radiologist. In all other cases, radiologists preferred the Standard image over the DECT image due to increased image noise and reduced low-contrast resolution with DECT. In all cases, SEMAR was preferred over Standard and DECT images. CONCLUSION: SEMAR was more effective at reducing metal artifacts than DECT. Radiologists should be aware of new artifacts and review both the original and SEMAR images. When the anatomy or implant is relatively small, DECT may be superior to SEMAR without additional artifacts. However, radiologist should be aware of a reduction in soft tissue contrast.

Patient size matters: Effect of tube current modulation on size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) and image quality in low-dose lung cancer screening CT.

PURPOSE: We compare the effect of tube current modulation (TCM) and fixed tube current (FTC) on size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) and image quality in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) for patients of all sizes. METHODS: Initially, 107 lung screening examinations were performed using FTC, which satisfied the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol ) limit of 3.0 mGy for standard-sized patients. Following protocol modification, 287 examinations were performed using TCM. Patient size and examination parameters were collected and water-equivalent diameter (Dw ) and SSDE were determined for each patient. Regression models were used to correlate CTDIvol and SSDE with Dw . Objective and subjective image quality were measured in 20 patients who had consecutive annual screenings with both FTC and TCM. RESULTS: CTDIvol was 2.3 mGy for all FTC scans and increased exponentially with Dw (range = 0.96-4.50 mGy, R2  = 0.73) for TCM scans. As patient Dw increased, SSDE decreased for FTC examinations (R2  = 1) and increased for TCM examinations (R2  = 0.54). Image quality measurements were superior with FTC for smaller sized patients and with TCM for larger sized patients (R2  > 0.5, P < 0.005). Radiologist graded all images acceptable for diagnostic evaluation of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Although FTC protocol offered a consistently low CTDIvol for all patients, it yielded unnecessarily high SSDE for small patients and increased image noise for large patients. Lung cancer screening with LDCT using TCM produces radiation doses that are appropriately reduced for small patients and increased for large patients with diagnostic image quality for all patients.

Impact of patient centering in CT on organ dose and the effect of using a positioning compensation system: Evidence from OSLD measurements in postmortem subjects.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency and impact of vertical mis-centering on organ doses in computed tomography (CT) exams and evaluate the effect of a commercially available positioning compensation system (PCS). Mis-centering frequency and magnitude was retrospectively measured in 300 patients examined with chest-abdomen-pelvis CT. Organ doses were measured in three postmortem subjects scanned on a CT scanner at nine different vertical table positions (maximum shift ± 4 cm). Organ doses were measured with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters inserted within organs. Regression analysis was performed to determine the correlation between organ doses and mis-centering. Methods were repeated using a PCS that automatically detects the table offset to adjust tube current output accordingly. Clinical mis-centering was >1 cm in 53% and 21% of patients in the vertical and lateral directions, respectively. The 1-cm table shifts resulted in organ dose differences up to 8%, while 4-cm shifts resulted in organ dose differences up to 35%. Organ doses increased linearly with superior table shifts for the lung, colon, uterus, ovaries, and skin (R2  = 0.73-0.99, P < 0.005). When the PCS was utilized, organ doses decreased with superior table shifts and dose differences were lower (average 5%, maximum 18%) than scans performed without PCS (average 9%, maximum 35%) at all table shifts. Mis-centering occurs frequently in the clinic and has a significant effect on patient dose. While accurate patient positioning remains important for maintaining optimal imaging conditions, a PCS has been shown to reduce the effects of patient mis-centering.