4.7 Article

Validation of the Minimum Data Set in Identifying Hospitalization Events and Payment Source

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.02.001

关键词

MDS; nursing home; data quality; hospitalization; payment source

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01 AG23077]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG023077] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) in identifying hospitalization events and payment source among nursing home residents. Research Design: The 2003 MDS, Medicare Provider Analysis and Review File (MedPAR), Medicare denominator file, Medicaid Analytical Extract (MAX) long-term care file, and MAX personal summary file for 4 states (California, Ohio, New York, and Texas) were obtained and merged. Setting: All Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing homes in these 4 states during 2003. Participants: All nursing home residents who were eligible for Medicare. Medicare or Medicaid managed care enrollees were excluded. Measurements: Using the identification by linking the MDS and claims data as the gold standard, we calculated false negative and false positive error rates of the MDS in identifying hospitalization events and payment source. Results: As for the accuracy of the MDS in identifying hospitalization events, the false negative error rates ranged from 6.8% to 19.5% and the false positive error rates were between 12.0% and 15.7%, depending on the state. With regard to the identification of Medicare payment source, the MDS had a low false negative rate (varying from 0.4% to 1.1%), and a relatively high false positive rate (ranging from 6.1% to 14.9%). The MDS alone did not seem to be a sufficient source for identification of Medicaid payment source (false negative rate ranging from 11.0% to 55.3%). Conclusions: The accuracy of the MDS in identifying hospitalizations and payment sources varies across the study states, and should be evaluated carefully with regard to the intended uses of the data. (I Am Med Dir Assoc 2011; 12: 38-43)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据