Utilization of medical codes for hypotension in shock patients: A retrospective analysis

1Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the utilization of hypotension diagnosis codes by shock type and year in known hypotensive patients. Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of the Medicare fee-for-service claims database. Patients with a shock diagnosis code between 2011 and 2017 were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM). Based on specific ICD codes corresponding to each shock type, patients were classified into four mutually exclusive cohorts: cardiogenic shock, hypovolemic shock, septic shock, and other/unspecified shock. Annual proportion and counts of cases with at least one hypotension ICD code for each shock cohort were generated to produce 7-year medical code utilization trends. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was performed to evaluate the statistical significance. Results: A total of 2,200,275 shock patients were analyzed, 13.3% (n=292,192) of which received a hypotension code. Hypovolemic shock cases were the most likely to receive a hypotension code (18.02%, n=46,544), while septic shock cases had the lowest rate (11.48%, n=158,348). The proportion of patients with hypotension codes for other cohorts were 18.0% (n=46,544) for hypovolemic shock and 16.9% (n=32,024) for other/unspecified shock. The presence of hypotension codes decreased by 0.9% between 2011 and 2014, but significantly increased from 10.6% in 2014 to 17.9% in 2017 (p <0.0001, Z=−105.05). Conclusion: Hypotension codes are remarkably underutilized in known hypotensive patients. Patients, providers, and researchers are likely to benefit from improved hypotension coding practices.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hunley, C., Murphy, S. M. E., Bershad, M., & Yapici, H. O. (2021). Utilization of medical codes for hypotension in shock patients: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 14, 861–867. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S305985

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free