E-CHAID决策模型下骨髓增生异常综合征DRGs分组实际运行效果分析

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-5253.2024.02.009

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (4296 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To analyze the practical effect of the diagnosisrelated groups (DRGs) of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) on hospitalization costs under the ECHAID decision model.Methods Data of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome as the first discharge diagnosis were retrospectively collected in the first page of medical records in the Hospital Information System (HIS) records from a tertiary hospital in Zhejiang Province from February 2021 to February 2023. All indicators of the medical record home page were tested via multiple linear regression tests between groups, Mann-Whitney-U- tests, and KruskalWallis H-tests. With indicators of variance inflation factor (VIF)<10 and P<0.05 in the univariate screen as the independent variable, and hospitalization costs as the dependent variable, the DRGs grouping decision tree model was established by using the E-CHAID exhaustive algorithm. The maximum cost was determined as the "median hospitalization cost+1.5 times the standard deviation" for each DRGs case combination, and the ratio of maximum cost for each DRGs grouping to the maximum cost for all cases was calculated to analyze the distribution characteristics of hospitalization costs.Results A total of 2 223 MDS patients were included. The three variables of whether monoclonal antibodies were used, whether the patients were admitted to the ICU, and the number of transfusions were the hierarchical classification variable nodes of the E-CHAID decision tree model. Twelve nodes were established, generating 7 terminal nodes. Variance coefficient -CV-s were 0.40, 0.15, 0.23, 0.21, 0.25, 0.51, and 0.46 respectively, and the Kruskal-Wallis -H- test between the DRGs groupings held statistical significance (H=2816.568, P<0.001). Among the 2 223 patients, 76 (3.42%) exceeded the maximum cost. The total hospitalization cost of patients exceeding the cost ceiling was 662 241.71yuan, accounting for 1.40% of the total DRGs hospitalization cost. The relative weights of DRGs groups 1 to 7 were 1.49, 2.42, 2.14, 1.33, 1.10, 0.47 and 0.24.Conclusion DRGs grouping of myelodysplastic syndromes under the E-CHAID decision model is more heterogeneous and the distribution among groups is reasonable, which can be used for the future development of DRGs in Zhejiang Province. It can provide some basis for the subsequent development of local DRGs medical payment reform for malignant hematological diseases such as myelodysplastic syndromes.

Key words： diagnosis related groups myelodysplastic syndrome exhaustive chi-squared automatic interaction detector medical insurance hospitalization cost

Received: 26 December 2023

Corresponding Authors: 任晋文，Email:1176132478@qq.com

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Hua Shibin
	Ren Jinwen
	Zhu Jiaying

Cite this article:

Hua Shibin,Ren Jinwen,Zhu Jiaying. Practical impact of DRGs categorization under E-CHAID decision model on the hospitalization costs of myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. journal1, 2024, 31(2): 124-128.

URL:

http://manu58.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_zgyytj/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1006-5253.2024.02.009 OR http://manu58.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_zgyytj/EN/Y2024/V31/I2/124

［1］中国中西医结合学会血液学专业委员会骨髓增生异常综合征专家委员会．骨髓增生异常综合征中西医结合诊疗专家共识:2018年［J］．中国中西医结合杂志，2018，38(8)：914-920．DOI: 10.7661/j.cjim.20180702.187.

［2］黄晓军．骨髓增生异常综合征伴原始细胞增多(MDS-EB)诊疗指南:2022年版［J］．全科医学临床与教育，2022，20(6)：483-485．DOI: 10.13558/j.cnki.issn1672-3686.2022.006.002.

［3］李洪强，张晓斌，张宏伟，等．基于DRGs测算数据分析血液系统疾病的临床路径管理问题［J］．中国医药科学，2021，11(12)：223-226．DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0616.2021.12.058.

［4］崔斌，朱兆芳．国家医疗保障疾病诊断相关分组(CHS-DRG)制定与实施的关键环节探讨［J］．中国医疗保险，2021(5)：47-51．DOI: 10.19546/j.issn.1674-3830.2021.5.014.

［5］苏勇．基于决策树E-CHAID算法建立股骨颈骨折病例的DRGs分组［J］．中国病案，2022，23(10)：62-66．DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2566.2022.10.023.

［6］邵慧丽，宁传英．基于E-CHAID算法胆囊结石患者DRGs分组研究［J］．中国卫生统计，2019，36(4)：554-555．

［7］周歌，谢俊明，吴丽，等．中医医院血液系统恶性肿瘤的病例组合研究［J］．现代预防医学，2022，49(8)：1438-1443．

［8］《国家医疗保障疾病诊断相关分组(CHS-DRG)分组与付费技术规范》［J］. 中国医疗保险, 2021(2): 59.

［9］王川，陈琳，宋振，等．DRGs模式和决策树组合模型在血液病患者住院费用研究中的应用［J］．中国卫生统计，2020，37(1)：70-72．

［10］杨静，秦兰．骨髓增生异常综合征中西医研究进展［J］．新疆中医药，2018，36(6)：110-112．

［11］李洪强，张宏伟，张晓斌，等．2014年-2019年某医院骨髓增生异常综合征患者住院费用分析［J］．中国病案，2022，23(2)：78-81．DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2566.2022.02.027.

［12］杨翼帆，王淑慧，杨凡，等．DRG支付方式下医院管理模式探索［J］．中国卫生标准管理，2021，12(3)：25-28．DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9316.2021.03.009.

［13］魏蓉溪，李涛，鱼锋，等．疾病诊断相关组在医院临床用血管理中的应用［J］．中国输血杂志，2022，35(1)：111-113．DOI: 10.13303/j.cjbt.issn.1004-549x.2022.01.032.

［14］王芳，雷晓盛，赵显辉．基于DRGs的医院住院医疗服务绩效评价与应用［J］．中国卫生信息管理杂志，2020，17(3)：383-389．DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5166.2020.03.026.

［15］LUO A J, CHANG W F, XIN Z R, et al. Diagnosis related group grouping study of senile cataract patients based on E-CHAID algorithm［J］. Int J Ophthalmol, 2018,11(2):308-313. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2018.02.21.

［16］杜剑亮，刘骏峰，陈倩．不同决策树算法建立DRGs模型的差异［J］．中国病案，2014，15(7)：38-41．DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2566.2014.07.018.