TY - JOUR T1 - Variation in the reporting of elective surgeries and its influence on patient safety indicators JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.05.29.21257635 SP - 2021.05.29.21257635 AU - Kenneth J. Locey AU - Thomas A. Webb AU - Sana Farooqui AU - Bala Hota Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/01/2021.05.29.21257635.abstract N2 - Background US hospital safety is routinely measured via patient safety indicators (PSIs). Receiving a score for most PSIs requires a minimum number of qualifying cases, which are partly determined by whether the associated diagnosis-related group (DRG) was surgical and whether the surgery was elective. While these criteria can exempt hospitals from PSIs, it remains to be seen whether exemption is driven by low volume, small numbers of DRGs, or perhaps, policies that determine how procedures are classified as elective.Methods Using Medicare inpatient claims data from 4,069 hospitals between 2015 and 2017, we examined how percentages of elective procedures relate to numbers of surgical claims and surgical DRGs. We used a combination of quantile regression and machine learning based anomaly detection to characterize these relationships and identify outliers. We then used a set of machine learning algorithms to test whether outliers were explained by the DRGs they reported.Results Average percentages of elective procedures generally decreased from 100% to 60% in relation to the number of surgical claims and the number of DRGs among them. Some providers with high volumes of claims had anomalously low percentages of elective procedures (5% – 40%). These low elective outliers were not explained by the particular surgical DRGs among their claims. However, among hospitals exempted from PSIs, those with the greatest volume of claims were always low elective outliers.Conclusion Some hospitals with relatively high numbers of surgical claims may have classified procedures as non-elective in a way that ultimately exempted them from certain PSIs.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialOur study did not involve clinical trials.Funding StatementNo external funding was received for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Approval to use LDS data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in the present work was granted by CMS under a Data Use Agreement (LDSS-2019-52808) to NavHealth (CareJourney) who, under their corresponding research proposal, are permitted to share aggregated LDS with our hospital.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesWe will provide all permissible data and source code needed to reproduce our analyses and figures upon request. ER -