[Is DRG Coding too Important to be Left to Physicians? - Evaluation of Economic Efficiency by Health Economists in a University Medical Centre]. / Ist die Kodierung im Krankenhaus zu wichtig, um sie Ärzten zu überlassen? ­ Evaluation der betriebswirtschaftlichen Effizienz von Gesundheitsökonomen an einem Zentrum der Maximalversorgung.

Background: We investigated and evaluated the cost effectiveness of coding by health care economists in a centre for orthopaedics and trauma surgery in Germany, by quantifying and comparing the financial efficiency of physicians with basic knowledge of the DRG-system with the results of healthcare economists with in-depth knowledge (M.Sc.). In addition, a hospital survey was performed to establish how DRG-coding is being performed and the identity of the persons involved. Material and Methods: In a prospective and controlled study, 200 in-patients were coded by a healthcare economist (study group). Prior to that, the same cases were coded by physicians with basic training in the DRG-system, who made up the control group. All cases were picked randomly and blinded without informing the physicians coding the controls, in order to avoid any Hawthorne effect. We evaluated and measured the effective weighting within the G-DRG, the DRG returns per patient, the overall DRG return, and the additional time needed. For the survey, questionnaires were sent to 1200 German hospitals. The completed questionnaire was analysed using a statistical program. Results: The return difference per patient between controls and the study group was significantly greater (2472 ± 337 €; p < 0.05); the overall return was raised by 494,500 €. The mean additional time needed was 11.32 ± 0.8 min per case, resulting in an increase in proceeds of 218 ± 38 € per minute. 2.5 % of all cases had to be devaluated by the health economist after the initial coding by the control group. Returned sheets of 60 hospitals were evaluated. The median level of DRG case reports was 1277 (2500-62,300). Coding was performed in 69 % of cases by doctors, 19 % by skilled specialists for DRG coding and in 8 % together. Overall satisfaction with the DRG was described by 61 % of respondents as good or excellent. Conclusion: Our prospective and controlled study quantifies the cost efficiency of health economists in a centre of orthopaedics and trauma surgery in Germany for the first time. We provide some initial evidence that health economists can enhance the CMI, the resulting DRG return per patient as well as the overall DRG return. Data from the survey shows that in many hospitals there is great reluctance to leave the coding to specialists only.

Recommendations for reporting outcome results in abdominal wall repair: results of a Consensus meeting in Palermo, Italy, 28-30 June 2012.

BACKGROUND: The literature dealing with abdominal wall surgery is often flawed due to lack of adherence to accepted reporting standards and statistical methodology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EuraHS Working Group (European Registry of Abdominal Wall Hernias) organised a consensus meeting of surgical experts and researchers with an interest in abdominal wall surgery, including a statistician, the editors of the journal Hernia and scientists experienced in meta-analysis. Detailed discussions took place to identify the basic ground rules necessary to improve the quality of research reports related to abdominal wall reconstruction. RESULTS: A list of recommendations was formulated including more general issues on the scientific methodology and statistical approach. Standards and statements are available, each depending on the type of study that is being reported: the CONSORT statement for the Randomised Controlled Trials, the TREND statement for non randomised interventional studies, the STROBE statement for observational studies, the STARLITE statement for literature searches, the MOOSE statement for metaanalyses of observational studies and the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A number of recommendations were made, including the use of previously published standard definitions and classifications relating to hernia variables and treatment; the use of the validated Clavien-Dindo classification to report complications in hernia surgery; the use of "time-to-event analysis" to report data on "freedom-of-recurrence" rather than the use of recurrence rates, because it is more sensitive and accounts for the patients that are lost to follow-up compared with other reporting methods. CONCLUSION: A set of recommendations for reporting outcome results of abdominal wall surgery was formulated as guidance for researchers. It is anticipated that the use of these recommendations will increase the quality and meaning of abdominal wall surgery research.