![]() ![]() The cost weightings were calculated taking the year 2004 as the baseline and are presented in the form of graphs. Differences in the coding system as well as alterations between the G-DRGs over the course of time were taken into consideration. ![]() The data regarding costs, cost weighting and mean length of stay (LOS) from the G- DRG reports of the InEK from 2004 to 2012 in 9 representative surgical and non-surgical ophthalmological treatment case groups were analyzed. The aim of this study was to analyze the development of G-DRGs in ophthalmology in Germany (MDC02) from 2004 to 2012 by means of data from the Institute for the Reimbursement System in Hospitals (InEK). In 2003 the German diagnosis-related groups (G- DRG) were introduced for reimbursement of inpatient treatment. The most important new aspects and changes in the G- DRG System 2005 and the accompanied execution regulations are explained with special view on cardiology. The G- DRG System has to be adapted continuously with consultation of the clinical expertise of the respective medical societies. However, while many of the known problems have been eliminated, there are still weaknesses in the G- DRG System even concerning cardiovascular medicine. The changes in the classification system with regard to a marked increase in the number of G DRGs, a modified grouping-logic, more properly determined reductions and extra charges for low and high outlier as well as the introduction of further additional charges contribute thereby to a better covering of services and treatments of cardiovascular patients. At present, many hospitals are struggling in an economic competition about the independence or maintenance of the hospital or several sub-departments. The preliminary phase with no budget reduction or redistribution being made and in which an inappropriate classification system had no negative impact on reimbursement has, thus, come to an end. From 2005 on, this system will be the definite measure for the budgets of nearly all german hospitals. The German diagnosis-related Group (G- DRG) System has recently been published in its third version. įürstenberg, T Bunzemeier, H Roeder, N Reinecke, H DRG-based transfusion reporting might serve as a means for transfusion benchmarking and thus aid studies of variations in transfusion practice. ![]() Currently, there is a lack of an internationally accepted standardized way to report institutional or national transfusion practices. The 13 largest blood consuming DRGs accounted for half the total costs in 1998. The largest blood-using DRG group was acute adult leukaemia ( DRG 473), which accounted for 10.4% of all transfusion costs. Ninety-three per cent of all transfusions could be classified into different DRGs. The key indicators include the percentage of transfused patients, the number of transfused units and costs in different DRG groups, as well as transfusion rates per DRG weighted treatment episodes. We use a DRG classification to describe the transfusion practice in Helsinki University Central Hospital. When this data is combined with a common patient classification system, Diagnosis-Related Groups ( DRG), it is possible to produce statistical results, that are similar in different institutions and may provide a means for international transfusion bench-marking and cost comparison. When the reporting is performed with an online analytical processing (OLAP) tool, real time reporting can be provided to blood subscribers. Transfusion data combined with data automatically recorded in hospital databases provides an outstanding tool for blood utilization reporting. Syrjälä, M T Kytöniemi, I Mikkolainen, K Ranimo, J Lauharanta, J Transfusion practice in Helsinki University Central Hospital: an analysis of diagnosis-related groups ( DRG).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |