 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 14-May-2010, Vol 123 No 1314 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[full text] [PDF] Distinguishing between tertiary and secondary facilities: a case study of cardiac diagnostic-related groups (DRGs)
Paul Rouse, Ajit Arulambalam, Ralph Correa, Cornelia Ullman
AbstractAim To develop a classification of tertiary cardiac DRGs in order to investigate differences in tertiary/secondary product mix across New Zealand district health boards (DHBs). Method 67 DRGs from 85,442 cardiac cases were analysed using cost weights and patient comorbidity complexity levels, which were used as a proxy for complexity. Results The research found high variability of severity within some DRGs. 5 DHBs are the main providers of 27 DRGs which are high cost and identified as tertiary by several ADHB clinicians; the same 5 DHBs have on average higher severity by DRG than the other DHBs. Conclusions NZ tertiary hospitals have a product mix of DRGs with higher complexity than secondary hospitals. Funding based on case weights needs to recognise the additional resource requirements for this higher complexity.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other journals |
|