HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Respond to This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Howard, A. E. Articles by Morris, P. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Howard, A. E. Articles by Morris, P. E.

Comparison of 3 Methods of Detecting Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Clinical Screening, Chart Review, and Diagnostic Coding

• Background Although the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome has been studied, few researchers have prospectively assessed the search tool used to identify cases.

• Methods For 5 months, all patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit in a teaching hospital were evaluated daily to determine whether criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome were met, and physicians’ progress notes and discharge summaries for these prospectively identified patients were reviewed for mention of the syndrome. Discharge forms were reviewed for the codes (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) specific to acute respiratory distress syndrome (518.82 or 518.85).

• Results Of 314 patients admitted, 65 prospectively met the criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Of these 65 patients, 31 had acute respiratory distress syndrome mentioned in their progress notes, and 4 of the 31 were subsequently assigned a code of 518.82 or 518.85. Patients with a physician’s notation for acute respiratory distress syndrome in their charts had a higher mortality (22/31 [71%]) than did the patients with no such notation (10/34 [29%]). This difference could not be accounted for by differences in length of stay, mean age, score on Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, or number of days in the unit before meeting the criteria.

• Conclusions The incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome is underestimated when based on either diagnostic coding or physicians’ notes without testing of the accuracy of coding. Both physicians and medical record coding specialists may require training in use of terms related to acute respiratory distress syndrome.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. D. Rubenfeld and M. S. Herridge Epidemiology and Outcomes of Acute Lung Injury Chest, February 1, 2007; 131(2): 554 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]