RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Hospital services are typically reimbursed using case-mix tools that group patients according to diagnoses and procedures. We recently developed a case-mix tool (i.e., the Queralt system) aimed at supporting clinicians in patient management. In this study, we compared the performance of a broadly used tool (i.e., the APR-DRG) with the Queralt system. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all admissions occurred in any of the eight hospitals of the Catalan Institute of Health (i.e., approximately, 30% of all hospitalizations in Catalonia) during 2019. Costs were retrieved from a full cost accounting. Electronic health records were used to calculate the APR-DRG group and the Queralt index, and its different sub-indices for diagnoses (main diagnosis, comorbidities on admission, andcomplications occurred during hospital stay) and procedures (main and secondary procedures). The primary objective was the predictive capacity of the tools; we also investigated efficiency and within-group homogeneity. RESULTS: The analysis included 166,837 hospitalization episodes, with a mean cost of 4,935 (median 2,616; interquartile range 1,011-5,543). The components of the Queralt system had higher efficiency (i.e., the percentage of costs and hospitalizations covered by increasing percentages of groups from each case-mix tool) and lower heterogeneity. The logistic model for predicting costs at pre-stablished thresholds (i.e., 80th, 90th, and 95th percentiles) showed better performance for the Queralt system, particularly when combining diagnoses and procedures (DP): the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the 80th, 90th, 95th cost percentiles were 0.904, 0.882, and 0.863 for the APR-DRG, and 0.958, 0.945, and 0.928 for the Queralt DP; the corresponding values of area under the precision-recall curve were 0.522, 0.604, and 0.699 for the APR-DRG, and 0.748, 0.7966, and 0.834 for the Queralt DP. Likewise, the linear model for predicting the actual cost fitted better in the case of the Queralt system. CONCLUSIONS: The Queralt system, originally developed to predict hospital outcomes, has good performance and efficiency for predicting hospitalization costs.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To assess the contribution of age and comorbidity to the risk of critical illness in hospitalized COVID-19 patients using increasingly exhaustive tools for measuring comorbidity burden. Patients and Methods: We assessed the effect of age and comorbidity burden in a retrospective, multicenter cohort of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Catalonia (North-East Spain) between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2022. Vaccinated individuals and those admitted within the first of the six COVID-19 epidemic waves were excluded from the primary analysis but were included in secondary analyses. The primary outcome was critical illness, defined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), or in-hospital death. Explanatory variables included age, sex, and four summary measures of comorbidity burden on admission extracted from three indices: the Charlson index (17 diagnostic group codes), the Elixhauser index and count (31 diagnostic group codes), and the Queralt DxS index (3145 diagnostic group codes). All models were adjusted by wave and center. The proportion of the effect of age attributable to comorbidity burden was assessed using a causal mediation analysis. Results: The primary analysis included 10,551 hospitalizations due to COVID-19; of them, 3632 (34.4%) experienced critical illness. The frequency of critical illness increased with age and comorbidity burden on admission, irrespective of the measure used. In multivariate analyses, the effect size of age decreased with the number of diagnoses considered to estimate comorbidity burden. When adjusting for the Queralt DxS index, age showed a minimal contribution to critical illness; according to the causal mediation analysis, comorbidity burden on admission explained the 98.2% (95% CI 84.1-117.1%) of the observed effect of age on critical illness. Conclusion: Comorbidity burden (when measured exhaustively) explains better than chronological age the increased risk of critical illness observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
RESUMEN
Complete digital pathology transformation for primary histopathological diagnosis is a challenging yet rewarding endeavor. Its advantages are clear with more efficient workflows, but there are many technical and functional difficulties to be faced. The Catalan Health Institute (ICS) has started its DigiPatICS project, aiming to deploy digital pathology in an integrative, holistic, and comprehensive way within a network of 8 hospitals, over 168 pathologists, and over 1 million slides each year. We describe the bidding process and the careful planning that was required, followed by swift implementation in stages. The purpose of the DigiPatICS project is to increase patient safety and quality of care, improving diagnosis and the efficiency of processes in the pathological anatomy departments of the ICS through process improvement, digital pathology, and artificial intelligence tools.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Comorbidity burden has been identified as a relevant predictor of critical illness in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, comorbidity burden is often represented by a simple count of few conditions that may not fully capture patients' complexity. PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a comprehensive index of the comorbidity burden (Queralt DxS), which includes all chronic conditions present on admission, as an adjustment variable in models for predicting critical illness in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and compare it with two broadly used measures of comorbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from all COVID-19 hospitalizations reported in eight public hospitals in Catalonia (North-East Spain) between June 15 and December 8 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of critical illness that included the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, transfer to ICU, or in-hospital death. Predictors including age, sex, and comorbidities present on admission measured using three indices: the Charlson index, the Elixhauser index, and the Queralt DxS index for comorbidities on admission. The performance of different fitted models was compared using various indicators, including the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROCC). RESULTS: Our analysis included 4607 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Of them, 1315 experienced critical illness. Comorbidities significantly contributed to predicting the outcome in all summary indices used. AUC (95% CI) for prediction of critical illness was 0.641 (0.624-0.660) for the Charlson index, 0.665 (0.645-0.681) for the Elixhauser index, and 0.787 (0.773-0.801) for the Queralt DxS index. Other metrics of model performance also showed Queralt DxS being consistently superior to the other indices. CONCLUSION: In our analysis, the ability of comorbidity indices to predict critical illness in hospitalized COVID-19 patients increased with their exhaustivity. The comprehensive Queralt DxS index may improve the accuracy of predictive models for resource allocation and clinical decision-making in the hospital setting.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Accurate risk adjustment is crucial for healthcare management and benchmarking. PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the performance of classic comorbidity functions (Charlson's and Elixhauser's), of the All Patients Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG), and of the Queralt Indices, a family of novel, comprehensive comorbidity indices for the prediction of key clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective cohort study using administrative healthcare data from 156,459 hospital discharges in Catalonia (Spain) during 2018. Study outcomes were in-hospital death, long hospital stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. We evaluated the performance of the following indices: Charlson's and Elixhauser's functions, Queralt's Index for secondary hospital discharge diagnoses (Queralt DxS), the overall Queralt's Index, which includes pre-existing comorbidities, in-hospital complications, and principal discharge diagnosis (Queralt Dx), and the APR-DRG. Discriminative ability was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), and measures of goodness of fit were also computed. Subgroup analyses were conducted by principal discharge diagnosis, by age, and type of admission. RESULTS: Queralt DxS provided relevant risk adjustment information in a larger number of patients compared to Charlson's and Elixhauser's functions, and outperformed both for the prediction of the 3 study outcomes. Queralt Dx also outperformed Charlson's and Elixhauser's indices, and yielded superior predictive ability and goodness of fit compared to APR-DRG (AUC for in-hospital death 0.95 for Queralt Dx, 0.77-0.93 for all other indices; for ICU stay 0.84 for Queralt Dx, 0.73-0.83 for all other indices). The performance of Queralt DxS was at least as good as that of the APR-DRG in most principal discharge diagnosis subgroups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that risk adjustment should go beyond pre-existing comorbidities and include principal discharge diagnoses and in-hospital complications. Validation of comprehensive risk adjustment tools such as the Queralt indices in other settings is needed.
