Fischer: Short Info: »mipp› (Switzerland).

Z I M       January 2008


Short Info: »mipp› (Switzerland)

Wolfram Fischer

Zentrum für Informatik und wirtschaftliche Medizin
CH-9116 Wolfertswil SG (Switzerland)
http://www.fischer-zim.ch/


Kapitel G.3 aus:
The DRG Family
State of affairs: 2007

      
Navigation
 î  ZIM home
 î  navigation tables
 î  sitemap
 î  abbreviations
DRG Family
^ index
<   Short Info: PMC (USA)
>   Short Info: EfP (France)
 
=   [print] [pdf icon] Whole Text as pdf file (1020 KB)
Related Links
»    Fallkosten-Modell KSA
»    Kurz-Info: »mipp› (Schweiz)
External Links
»   Modell integrierter Patientenpfade
 
 

|^·<×>·v|

G.3

 

»mipp› – Modell integrierter Patientenpfade (Switzerland)

1

1 Rieben et al. [Pfadkostenrechnung, 2003]; MIPP [Fallpreispauschalen mit »mipp›, 2001]; http:// www.mipp.ch /.

2 PRI [PMC-Rel.5, 1993].

3 LEP = "Leistungserfassung in der Pflege" (LEP). – Brügger et al. [LEP-Methode 2.0, 2002].

 

»mipp›

The "Model of Integrated Patient Pathways" was developed by the Aarau Cantonal Hospital (KSA). Since 1995, clinical pathways are jointly developed by physicians and nurses using this method1 which was inspired by the PMC model.2 The initial starting point for these works was the calculation of standard case costs. For this purpose, clinical guidelines, nursing data (based on the LEP system3), and accounting system data were gathered and compiled into standardized pathways of specified clinical conditions or therapeutic procedures while applying a consensus process. Meanwhile, this undertaking emerged into an important interdisciplinary project, which allows for optimization of both quality and costs.

2

4 In Switzerland, the term hospital-own standards is used often instead of hospital-own guidelines.

 

Patient's pathway

A clinical pathway – called "patient's pathway" in »mipp› – consists of the list of all services rendered in relation to a given treatment as defined in the hospital's own clinical guidelines.4

3

 

Cost calculation

Each service has its specific cost value attributed, allowing for standard costs of the pathways to be calculated.

4

5 Examples of continuously evaluated parameters in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CE) are e. g.: switch to open-surgery CE, length of stay, number of diagnostic investigations ordered during the post-operative stage.

   

In addition, certain quality parameters are defined for each pathway, which are considered and verified either continuously, or merely on interest.5

5

 

Pathway components

Pathways are structured hierarchically. The elements of pathways are called components. Examples are: "visit in day-clinic, in laparoscopic surgery", or "emergency admission, nursing, in cholecystitis".

6

 

Partial pathways

A pathway can be divided into several partial pathways. These then represent different therapeutic processes that are (to an estimated degree) likely to be administered to the patient.

7

6 Brügger et al. [LEP-Methode 2.0, 2002].

 

Service units

In turn, each component is divided into individual service units. The LEP system6 was used to describe the nursing service units.

8

7 It was established, for example, that out of all laparoscopic cholecystecomies (CE) performed at KSA, a resting electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed and evaluated in only 10 % of the cases; or that 20 % of patients who underwent laparoscopic CE vomited after surgery in the wake-up room. – In the surgery ward, emergency patients with cholecystectomy in cholecystitis receive as a standard three injections, plus five infusions (to be prepared and connected). In addition, around 30 % of all patients receive an intravenous injection (e. g. as pain medication). – Approx. 80 % of patients have to be assisted during toiletting, the remaining 20 % do not.

   

When developing these service units, it turned out that some of the services do not occur in all, but only in a given number of cases. A flexible solution was then found for this problem: These services were weighted by an occurrence probability factor.7

9

   

 

 
   

 

 

 

References

 
 
Brügger et al.
LEP-Methode 2.0
2002
Brügger U, Bamert U, Maeder C, Odermatt R. Beschreibung der Methode LEP® Nursing 2. Leistungs­erfas­sung für die Gesundheits- und Krankenpflege. 2, überarbeitete Auflage, (LEP AG) 2002: 32 pp. Internet: http:// www.lep.ch / index.php / de / wissenspool-mainmenu-76 ? func = select & id = 32.

10

 
MIPP
Fallpreispauschalen mit »mipp›
2001
Geschäftsstelle »mipp› Kantonsspital Aarau. Neues Spitalfinanzierungsmodell auf der Basis von Behandlungsstandards. Evaluation der Phase 1.7.2000 bis 30.6.2001 des Pilot­projekts: Fallpreispauschalen nach dem Modell integrierter Patientenpfade »mipp›. Aarau 2001: 105 pp. Internet: http:// www.mipp.ch / u_documents / Schlussbericht%20 als%20PDF(1).PDF.

11

 
PRI
PMC-Rel.5
1993
PRI (The Pittsburgh Research Institute). Patient Manage­ment Categories. A Comprehensive Overview. Pittsburgh (The Pittsburgh Research Institute) 1993: approx. 65 pp.

12

 
Rieben et al.
Pfadkostenrechnung
2003
Rieben E, Müller HP, Holler T, Ruflin G. Pfadkostenrechnung als Kosten­träger­rechnung. Kalkulation und Anwendung von Patientenpfaden. Landsberg (ecomed) 2003: 279 pp.

13

Z I M  -  Zentrum für Informatik und wirtschaftliche Medizin
CH-9116 Wolfertswil (SG), Steigstrasse 12, Switzerland
E-mail: , Tel: +41 71 3900 444

 
 
Previous Chapter: Tables of Contents: Next Chapter:
Short Info: PMC (USA) DRG Family Short Info: EfP (France)
Navigations-Tabellen
Z I M - Hauptseite

©  Z I M 
Source = http://www.fischer-zim.ch/textk-pcs-en/t-G3-drg-fam-MIPP-en-0801.htm
( latest compilation: 17.04.2012 )