Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine how diagnosing and coding of malnutrition in an internal medicine ward setting influences potential hospital reimbursement. Methods: Patients admitted to the internal medicine ward of Centro Hospitalar do Médio Ave between April 24 and May 22, 2018 were screened by Nutritional Risk Screening 2002, and patients classified as at “risk for malnutrition” were assessed by the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). For each patient, medical coders simulated coding, taking into account the malnutrition diagnosis by PG-SGA, and compared it with the real coding as retrieved from the medical records. For the coding, the Diagnosis-Related Group and Severity of Illness were determined, allowing the calculation of hospitalization cost (HC) according to Portuguese Ministerial Directive number 207/2017. The increase of HC in this subsample was extrapolated to the number of patients admitted during 2018, to obtain the estimated unreported annual HC. Results: Of the 71% (92/129) participants having malnutrition risk according to Nutritional Risk Screening 2002, 86% were malnourished. Including malnutrition diagnosis in the coding of malnourished patients increased the level of Severity of Illness in 39% of cases and increased HC for this subsample, resulting in €52 000. Extrapolating for the annual HC, total HC reached €1.3 million. Conclusions: Identifying malnourished patients and including this highly prevalent diagnosis in medical records allows malnutrition coding and consequent increase of HC. This can improve the potential hospital reimbursement, which could contribute to the quality of patient care and economic sustainability of hospitals.
Background: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation, and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation. Methods: A GLIM-constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus-based guidance through a modified Delphi review. A multiround review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements. Results: The final round of review was highly favorable, with 99% overall “agree” or “strongly agree” responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection, or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (milligrams per deciliter or milligram per liter) for the clinical laboratory that is being used. Conclusion: Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgment based on underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.
