To assess concordance between hospital coding and clinician coding for patients undergoing spinal instrumentation procedures and determine if our coding systems result in accurate financial reimbursement from the primary care trust (PCT). We conducted a one year retrospective review of 41 patients who underwent spinal instrumentation procedures. Data collected from IT systems included: operation description, clinician procedure code, hospital procedure code, Hospital Health Resource grouping (HRG), clinician HRG, instrumentation costs and PCT reimbursement fees. From this data we compared coding based re-imbursement fees and actual surgical costs, taking into account exact instrumentation prices. In all cases the primary hospital and clinician coding values differed. Using the clinician code would have altered the HRG group in 16 patients. Using solely clinician coding would have generated less financial reimbursement than using hospital coding. In 23 patients undergoing complex spinal procedures, instrumentation costs represented a significant proportion of the final fee obtained from the PCT, thus leaving a small proportion for the associated hospital stay costs. This suggests instrumentation costs are inadequately reimbursed from the PCT. Hospital coding appears more accurate than clinician coding and results in greater financial reimbursement. On the whole, we found there to be insufficient reimbursement from the PCT. The variable and sometimes substantial cost of spinal instrumentation procedures results in inadequate reimbursement for many procedures. We feel the
The British Spine Registry (BSR) was introduced in May 2012 to be used as a web-based database for spinal surgeries carried out across the UK. Use of this database has been encouraged but not compulsory, which has led to a variable level of engagement in the UK. In 2019 NHS England and NHS Improvement introduced a new Best Practice Tariff (BPT) to encourage input of spinal surgical data on the BSR. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the spinal BPT on compliance with the recording of surgical data on the BSR. A retrospective review of data was performed at a tertiary spinal centre between 2018 to 2020. Data were collated from electronic patient records, theatre operating lists, and trust-specific BSR data. Information from the BSR included operative procedures (mandatory), patient consent, email addresses, and demographic details. We also identified Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs) which qualified for BPT.Aims
Methods
