A Clinical Assessment of Medis-Groups

Interest has focused recently on measuring severity of illness, both to improve the fairness of diagnosis related group—based reimbursement and to facilitate judgments about hospital quality of care. Medis-Groups® is a prominent, proprietary severity-measurement system, recently mandated for use by all Pennsylvania hospitals. We reviewed Medis-Groups and its key clinical findings. Medis-Groups produces admission scores, from 0 through 4, indicating increasing risk of imminent organ failure. Score computation is independent of diagnosis, but many key clinical findings are disease specific and require particular diagnostic technologies. Using a database including patients 65 years of age and older from 24 hospitals, we found that fewer than 1% of patients with scores of 0 or 1 died in-hospital, compared with 60% of those with scores of 4. Questions remain about the impact of the procedural nature of many key clinical findings and the independence from diagnosis. Further study is needed to determine the utility of Medis-Groups for policy purposes. ( JAMA 1988;260:3159-3163)

[1]  P. Bugge,et al.  Interobserver variation in assessment of respiratory signs. Physicians' guesses as to interobserver variation. , 2009 .

[2]  P. Armitage,et al.  OBSERVER DISAGREEMENT IN PHYSICAL SIGNS OF THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM. , 1965, Lancet.

[3]  W. Knaus,et al.  Physiologic abnormalities and outcome from acute disease. Evidence for a predictable relationship. , 1986 .

[4]  C J Coulton,et al.  Implications of DRG Payments for Medical Intensive Care , 1985, Medical care.

[5]  F. Lithner,et al.  Foot angiography in diabetic patients with gangrene. , 2009, Acta medica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[6]  J S Gonnella,et al.  Staging of disease. A case-mix measurement. , 1984, JAMA.

[7]  R H Brook,et al.  Adjusted hospital death rates: a potential screen for quality of medical care. , 1987, American journal of public health.

[8]  Roger A. Horn,et al.  The Computerized Severity Index , 1986, Journal of Medical Systems.

[9]  D. Louis,et al.  Disease staging: Implications for hospital reimbursement and management , 1984, Health care financing review.

[10]  D M Eddy,et al.  Variations in physician practice: the role of uncertainty. , 1984, Health affairs.

[11]  Physician profiling. How it can be misleading and what to do. , 1987, Consultant.

[12]  D. E. Lawrence,et al.  APACHE—acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system , 1981, Critical care medicine.

[13]  Jacobs Cm,et al.  MEDISGRPS: a clinically based approach to classifying hospital patients at admission. , 1985 .

[14]  J E Johnson,et al.  Medical house staff performance in physical examination. , 1986, Archives of internal medicine.

[15]  L. Iezzoni,et al.  Admission MedisGroups Score and the Cost of Hospitalizations , 1988, Medical care.

[16]  J Backofen,et al.  The computerized severity index. A new sophisticated tool to measure hospital quality of care. , 1987, Healthcare forum.

[17]  Douglas P. Wagner,et al.  Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) and Medicare reimbursement , 1984, Health care financing review.

[18]  Robert H. Brook,et al.  Hospital Inpatient Mortality , 1987 .

[19]  M. Nathanson,et al.  Physical examination. Frequently observed errors. , 1976 .

[20]  E. Raftery,et al.  Examination of the heart: an investigation into variation. , 1967, American journal of epidemiology.

[21]  Keith A. Soper,et al.  Diagnosis of diabetic eye disease. , 1982, JAMA.

[22]  W. Knaus,et al.  An evaluation of outcome from intensive care in major medical centers. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.