APR-DRGs are a patient classification system that assigns each inpatient stay to one of more than 300 base APR-DRGs, and then further stratifies each base APR-DRG into four levels of severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM), based on the number, nature, and interaction of complications and comorbidities (CCs) and major CCs (MCCs). SOI reflects the extent of physiologic decompensation or organ system loss of function, while ROM reflects the likelihood of dying. Both SOI and ROM are used to adjust payment rates, quality indicators, and performance measures for hospitals and other healthcare providers.
The CDI manager can gain more information about the potential opportunities for improvement by auditing focused APR-DRGs that have a high impact on SOI/ROM levels, such as those that have a large variation in relative weights across the four severity levels, or those that have a high frequency or volume of cases. The audit can help identify the documentation gaps, inconsistencies, or inaccuracies that may affect the assignment of SOI/ROM levels, such as missing, vague, or conflicting diagnoses, procedures, or clinical indicators. The audit can also help evaluate the CDI team’s performance in terms of query rate, response rate, agreement rate, and accuracy rate. Based on the audit findings, the CDI manager can develop an education plan for both the CDI team and the physicians to address the specific documentation improvement areas and provide feedback and guidance on best practices.
A. Audit cases for missed diagnosis by the CDI practitioner to target in the education plan. This is not the best way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not capture all the factors that affect SOI/ROM levels, such as procedures, clinical indicators, or interactions among diagnoses. It may also focus only on the CDI practitioner’s performance, without considering the physician’s role in documentation quality and completeness.
B. Audit focused cases by physicians that have a higher SOI/ROM for education plan. This is not a valid way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not identify the documentation improvement opportunities for cases that have a lower SOI/ROM than expected, based on their clinical complexity and acuity. It may also create a perception of bias or favoritism among physicians, if only some are selected for audit and education.
C. Audit cases that have high SOI/ROM assigned by coders for education and follow-up. This is not a reliable way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not reflect the true SOI/ROM levels of the cases, if there are errors or discrepancies in coding or grouping. It may also overlook the documentation improvement opportunities for cases that have low SOI/ROM assigned by coders, despite having high clinical complexity and acuity.
References:
CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530
3M™ All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR DRGs) | 3M United States
Q&A: Understanding SOI and ROM in the APR-DRG system | ACDIS
Use SOI/ROM scores to enhance CDI program effectiveness | ACDIS
