Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:41:19.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Codes for Surgical Site Infection and Noninfectious Wound Complications After Mastectomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

Margaret A. Olsen ,
Kelly E. Ball ,
Katelin B. Nickel ,
Anna E. Wallace  and
Victoria J. Fraser
Margaret A. Olsen*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Kelly E. Ball
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Katelin B. Nickel
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Anna E. Wallace
Affiliation:
HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware
Victoria J. Fraser
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
*
Address correspondence to Margaret A. Olsen, PhD, MPH, Professor of Medicine and Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8051, 660 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Few studies have validated ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for surgical site infection (SSI), and none have validated coding for noninfectious wound complications after mastectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes in health insurer claims data to identify SSI and noninfectious wound complications, including hematoma, seroma, fat and tissue necrosis, and dehiscence, after mastectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records for 275 randomly selected women who were coded in the claims data for mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction and had an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for a wound complication within 180 days after surgery. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) to evaluate the accuracy of diagnosis codes in identifying specific wound complications and the PPV to determine the accuracy of coding for the breast surgical procedure.

RESULTS

The PPV for SSI was 57.5%, or 68.9% if cellulitis-alone was considered an SSI, while the PPV for cellulitis was 82.2%. The PPVs of individual noninfectious wound complications ranged from 47.8% for fat necrosis to 94.9% for seroma and 96.6% for hematoma. The PPVs for mastectomy, implant, and autologous flap reconstruction were uniformly high (97.5%–99.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that claims data can be used to compare rates of infectious and noninfectious wound complications after mastectomy across facilities, even though PPVs vary by specific type of postoperative complication. The accuracy of coding was highest for cellulitis, hematoma, and seroma, and a composite group of noninfectious complications (fat necrosis, tissue necrosis, or dehiscence).

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:334–339

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , March 2017 , pp. 334 - 339
Copyright
© 2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Yokoe, DS, Noskin, GA, Cunningham, SM, et al. Enhanced identification of postoperative infections among inpatients. Emerg Inf Dis 2004;10:1924–1930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Olsen, MA, Fraser, VJ. Use of diagnosis codes and/or wound culture results for surveillance of surgical site infection after mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:544–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Miner, AL, Sands, KE, Yokoe, DS, et al. Enhanced identification of postoperative infections among outpatients. Emerg Inf Dis 2004;10:1931–1937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Olsen, MA, Nickel, KB, Fox, IK, et al. Incidence of surgical site infection following mastectomy with and without immediate reconstruction using private insurer claims data. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:907–914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Nickel, KB, Fox, IK, Margenthaler, JA, Wallace, AE, Fraser, VJ, Olsen, MA. Effect of noninfectious wound complications after mastectomy on subsequent surgical procedures and early implant loss. J Am Coll Surg 2016;222:844–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Procedure-Associated (PA) module: surgical site infection (SSI) event. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/9pscSSIcurrent.pdf. Updated 2016. Accessed November 14, 2013.Google Scholar
7. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Degnim, AC, Throckmorton, AD, Boostrom, SY, et al. Surgical site infection after breast surgery: impact of 2010 CDC reporting guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:4099–4103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Sands, KE, Yokoe, DS, Hooper, DC, et al. Detection of postoperative surgical-site infections: comparison of health plan-based surveillance with hospital-based programs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:741–743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Rhee, C, Huang, SS, Berrios-Torres, SI, et al. Surgical site infection surveillance following ambulatory surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:225–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Calderwood, MS, Kleinman, K, Murphy, MV, Platt, R, Huang, SS. Improving public reporting and data validation for complex surgical site infections after coronary artery bypass graft surgery and hip arthroplasty. Open Forum Infect Dis 2014;1:ofu106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Calderwood, MS, Kleinman, K, Bratzler, DW, et al. Use of Medicare claims to identify US hospitals with a high rate of surgical site infection after hip arthroplasty. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:31–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Stevenson, KB, Khan, Y, Dickman, J, et al. Administrative coding data, compared with CDC/NHSN criteria, are poor indicators of health care-associated infections. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:155–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. West, J, Khan, Y, Murray, DM, Stevenson, KB. Assessing specific secondary ICD-9-CM codes as potential predictors of surgical site infections. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:701–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Julian, KG, Brumbach, AM, Chicora, MK, et al. First year of mandatory reporting of healthcare-associated infections, Pennsylvania: an infection control-chart abstractor collaboration. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:926–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Calderwood, MS, Kleinman, K, Bratzler, DW, et al. Medicare claims can be used to identify US hospitals with higher rates of surgical site infection following vascular surgery. Med Care 2014;52:918–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Calderwood, MS, Ma, A, Khan, YM, et al. Use of Medicare diagnosis and procedure codes to improve detection of surgical site infections following hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, and vascular surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:40–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Hollenbeak, CS, Boltz, MM, Nikkel, LE, Schaefer, E, Ortenzi, G, Dillon, PW. Electronic measures of surgical site infection: implications for estimating risks and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:784–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Lawson, EH, Louie, R, Zingmond, DS, et al. A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30-day surgical complications. Ann Surg 2012;256:973–981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Bolon, MK, Hooper, D, Stevenson, KB, et al. Improved surveillance for surgical site infections after orthopedic implantation procedures: extending applications for automated data. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:1223–1229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Yokoe, DS, Khan, Y, Olsen, MA, et al. Enhanced surgical site infection surveillance following hysterectomy, vascular, and colorectal surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:768–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Knepper, BC, Young, H, Jenkins, TC, Price, CS. Time-saving impact of an algorithm to identify potential surgical site infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:1094–1098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Fisher, ES, Whaley, FS, Krushat, WM, et al. The accuracy of Medicare’s hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain. Am J Public Health 1992;82:243–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Talia, J, Agarwal, S, Momoh, AO, Wilkins, EG, Kozlow, JH. The validity of hospital discharge data for autologous breast reconstruction research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;135:368–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Olsen supplementary material

Olsen supplementary material

Download Olsen supplementary material(File)
File 19.3 KB