TY - JOUR
T1 - Secondary Analysis of Office of Inspector General's Pressure Ulcer Data
T2 - Incidence, Avoidability, and Level of Harm
AU - Levine, Jeffrey M.
AU - Zulkowski, Karen M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/9/27
Y1 - 2015/9/27
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To investigate in greater detail the government data on pressure ulcer (PrU) incidence, avoidability, and level of harm. DESIGN: The authors performed a secondary analysis of PrU data published in 2 studies by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on adverse events in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). SETTING: Acute care hospitals and Medicare-certified SNFs across the United States. PATIENTS: The hospital sample included 780 Medicare beneficiaries randomly selected from 999,645 discharges during October 2008. The SNF population included 653 Medicare beneficiaries randomly selected from 100,771 patients whose stay began within 1 day of hospital discharge, who had a length of stay of 35 days or less, and whose stay ended in August 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pressure ulcer incidence with stage, location, avoidability, and level of harm using the Modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Errors Reporting and Prevention Index. MAIN RESULTS: The PrU incidence in hospitals was 2.9%, and the incidence in SNFs was 3.4%. Most PrUs were Stages I and II, with 78.3% in hospitals and 54.5% in SNFs. The avoidability of PrUs was similar in both locations, with 39.1% unavoidable in hospitals and 40.9% unavoidable in SNFs. All hospital-acquired PrUs and 90.9% of SNF-acquired PrUs were designated level E on the National Coordinating Council for Medication Errors Reporting and Prevention Index, indicating a temporary harm event. CONCLUSIONS: The OIG studies captured few Stage III PrUs and no Stage IV PrUs, and they underestimate the level of harm generated from PrUs in hospitals and SNFs. The studies offer a structured algorithm for avoidability determination, but lack measures of reliability and validity. Nonetheless, the high rate of unavoidable ulcers leads to questions on the reliability of PrUs as a quality indicator. There are several weaknesses in OIG methodology with regard to PrUs; however, its structured algorithm can be viewed as a starting point for future studies of PrU avoidability.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To investigate in greater detail the government data on pressure ulcer (PrU) incidence, avoidability, and level of harm. DESIGN: The authors performed a secondary analysis of PrU data published in 2 studies by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on adverse events in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). SETTING: Acute care hospitals and Medicare-certified SNFs across the United States. PATIENTS: The hospital sample included 780 Medicare beneficiaries randomly selected from 999,645 discharges during October 2008. The SNF population included 653 Medicare beneficiaries randomly selected from 100,771 patients whose stay began within 1 day of hospital discharge, who had a length of stay of 35 days or less, and whose stay ended in August 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pressure ulcer incidence with stage, location, avoidability, and level of harm using the Modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Errors Reporting and Prevention Index. MAIN RESULTS: The PrU incidence in hospitals was 2.9%, and the incidence in SNFs was 3.4%. Most PrUs were Stages I and II, with 78.3% in hospitals and 54.5% in SNFs. The avoidability of PrUs was similar in both locations, with 39.1% unavoidable in hospitals and 40.9% unavoidable in SNFs. All hospital-acquired PrUs and 90.9% of SNF-acquired PrUs were designated level E on the National Coordinating Council for Medication Errors Reporting and Prevention Index, indicating a temporary harm event. CONCLUSIONS: The OIG studies captured few Stage III PrUs and no Stage IV PrUs, and they underestimate the level of harm generated from PrUs in hospitals and SNFs. The studies offer a structured algorithm for avoidability determination, but lack measures of reliability and validity. Nonetheless, the high rate of unavoidable ulcers leads to questions on the reliability of PrUs as a quality indicator. There are several weaknesses in OIG methodology with regard to PrUs; however, its structured algorithm can be viewed as a starting point for future studies of PrU avoidability.
KW - Medicare
KW - healthcare costs
KW - pressure ulcers
KW - quality measurement
KW - wound care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940397471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/01.ASW.0000470070.23694.f3
DO - 10.1097/01.ASW.0000470070.23694.f3
M3 - Article
C2 - 26280701
AN - SCOPUS:84940397471
SN - 1527-7941
VL - 28
SP - 420
EP - 428
JO - Advances in Skin and Wound Care
JF - Advances in Skin and Wound Care
IS - 9
ER -