• D Brammen, V Rickert, T Esser, F Prätsch, R Röhrig, Th Hachenberg, and U Ebmeyer.
• Universitätsklinik für Anaesthesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Deutschland. Dominik.Brammen@med.ovgu.de.
• Anaesthesist. 2016 Jun 1; 65 (6): 430-7.

BackgroundComplications and comorbidities are encodable in the German diagnosis related groups (G-DRG) system and can improve revenues. In this study, secondary diagnoses were identified through drug administrations during anaesthesia and were economically evaluated by regrouping these cases.MethodsAll intraoperative drug administrations from 2008 were extracted from a database. After exclusion of synonyms and procedure-specific drug administrations, all remaining drugs were matched to explicit secondary diagnoses. All cases were regrouped with their newly defined secondary diagnoses by G‑DRG grouper software, and changes in cost weight were evaluated.ResultsA total of 29 drugs could be assigned to 18 secondary diagnoses. From 22,440 anaesthesia the § 21 data record could be extracted in 1,929 cases and was regrouped with 2,976 secondary diagnoses, according to additional proceeds of 125,330.25 € in 2008 and 103,542.35 € in 2014. Intraoperative secondary diagnoses influence cost weight only in small parts. The average increase in revenue in this study could have been about 50 € per case. From 2008 to 2014 secondary diagnoses were continuously devaluated, although some of them, e. g. afibrinogenemia, have were revaluated.DiscussionOur retrospective method of making a diagnosis and assuming a correct indication of drug administration is inapplicable to daily routine. The anaesthesiologic documentation has to make drug administration and thereby the secondary diagnosis plausible.

24 keywords...

hide…