View June's Board Pack - Royal Bournemouth Hospital

Figure 1: HRG, procedure and diagnosis error rate40%HRG error rate Procedure error rate Diagnosis error rate35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11Trust error rateNational averageAudit results7 We measure trust performance using two indicators - HealthcareResource Group (HRG) accuracy and clinical coding accuracy - see Figure1. The performance of the Trust, measured using HRG error rate, is similarto the national average using the 2009/10 full year results. The Trust'saverage HRG error rate is 10 per cent compared to the 2009/10 nationalaverage of 9.1 per cent.8 HRGs are based on diagnosis and procedure codes which generatesthe HRG on which payment is based. Figure 1 shows that the percentage ofdiagnoses and procedures incorrectly coded at the Trust is 9.9 per cent.This is an improvement on the 2009/10 national average of 11 per cent.This year we audited 1,422 diagnoses and procedures and there were 142errors or 9.9 per cent were in correct. The Coding Manager has worked withclinical staff to ensure the content of the electronic discharge summary isrobust enough to support clinical coding. However, ensuring that theelectronic discharge summary contains the right level of detail is an ongoingissue as clinical staff rotate and change regularly.9 The main reasons for the coding errors were:■ non coder errors – leading to 65 errors (45.8 per cent); and■ omission of diagnosis and procedures – leading to 46 errors (32.4 percent)Unsafe to audit - cases excluded from the audit10 The aim of the programme is to provide assurance that the HRGs usedas the basis for charging commissioners have been correctly calculated. Wewere provided with 300 episodes with a value of £342,424. No episodeswere excluded from the audit because they were "unsafe to audit".Audit Commission Payment by results data assurance framework 3