Relation of Telemetry Use and Mortality Risk, Hospital Length of Stay, and Readmission Rates in Patients With Respiratory Illness.

The 2004 American Heart Association expert opinion-based guidelines restrict telemetry use primarily to patients with current or high-risk cardiac conditions. Respiratory infections have emerged as a common source of hospitalization, and telemetry is frequently applied without indication in efforts to monitor patient decompensation. In this retrospective study, we aimed to determine whether telemetry impacts mortality risk, length of stay (LOS), or readmission rates in hospitalized patients with acute respiratory infection not meeting American Heart Association criteria. A total of 765 respiratory infection patient encounters with Diagnosis-Related Groups 193, 194, 195, 177, 178 and 179 admitted in 2013 to 2015 to 2 tertiary community-based medical centers (Mayo Clinic, Arizona, and Mayo Clinic, Florida) were evaluated, and outcomes between patients who underwent or did not undergo telemetry were compared. Overall, the median LOS was longer in patients who underwent telemetry (3.0 days vs 2.0 days, p <0.0001). No differences between cohorts were noted in 30-day readmission rates (0.6% vs 1.3%, p = 0.32), patient mortality while hospitalized (0.6% vs 1.3%, p = 0.44), mortality at 30 days (7.9% vs 7.7%, p = 0.94), or mortality at 90 days (13.5% vs 13.5%, p = 0.99). Telemetry predicted LOS for both univariate (estimate 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.32, p = 0.003) and multivariate (estimate 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.30, p = 0.003) analyses after controlling for severity of illness but did not predict patient mortality. In conclusion, this study identified that patients with respiratory infection who underwent telemetry without clear indications may face increased LOS without reducing their readmission risk or improving the overall mortality.

How diagnosis-related group 559 will change the US Medicare cost reimbursement ratio for stroke centers.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke saves societal costs, but hospitals that practice acute stroke care appear to shoulder the burden of the cost, which exceeds reimbursement. With creation of the diagnosis-related group (DRG) 559, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pays hospitals approximately US $6000 more per case when thrombolysis is administered. We sought to determine the total cost of, and reimbursement for, acute stroke treatment with thrombolysis at a single stroke center and the economic impact of DRG 559. METHODS: Between September 2001 and December 2004, we collected data on all patients with acute stroke who received thrombolysis. We identified all hospital costs and reimbursement per patient. Financial results were expressed as a cost-reimbursement ratio: average total cost to average total reimbursement per patient. We then reanalyzed data using the projected Medicare hospital reimbursement with DRG 559. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with stroke (mean age, 72 years) were treated (mean length of stay, 4.4 days; mean stroke severity, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 15; and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate, 7%). The cost-reimbursement ratio was 1.41 (95% CI=0.98 to 2.28) before DRG 559 and estimated to be 0.82 (95% CI=0.66 to 0.97) after DRG 559. CONCLUSIONS: Our hospital costs have traditionally exceeded Medicare reimbursement for the acute care of thrombolyzed patients with ischemic stroke, but with DRG 559, a new economically favorable cost-reimbursement ratio for hospitals will be established.