A clinically meaningful classification system that can distinguish among types of patients by the resources they consume has become increasingly important for the effective management of hospitals. Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) are being used for this purpose for inpatients around the world. This paper briefly describes classification systems designed for outpatients, in particular Ambulatory Visit Groups (AVGs) and Ambulatory Patient Groups (APGs). Some management issues and implications for Australian hospitals should ambulatory casemix be introduced are discussed. (AMRJ (1990), 20(4), 152–158).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DomanA. (1985). Diagnosis Related Group reimbursement of hospital services in the United States: Potential for introduction in Australia. Community Health Studies, 9(1), 54–61.
2.
FetterR.B.AverillR.F.LichtensteinJ.L.FreemanJ.L. (1984). Ambulatory visit groups: A framework for measuring productivity in ambulatory care. Health Services Research, 19(4), 416–437.
3.
FetterR.B.ShinY.FreemanJ.L.AverillR.F.ThompsonJ.D. (1980). Case Mix definition by diagnosis related groups. Medical Care, 18(2), S1–S53.
4.
FinneganR. (1987). Coding notes. Journal of the American Medical Record Association, 58(4), 6, 38.
5.
FinneganR. (1988). Coding notes. Journal of the American Medical Record Association, 59(4), 24–25.
HindleD.LaffeyJ. (1990). Ambulatory Encounters in Hospitals: A Preliminary Investigation of Needs and Methods of Classification. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health.
8.
KellyW.FillmoreH.TenanP. (1988). Casemix classification and ambulatory care. Business and Health, 5(77), 41–44.
9.
McGuireT.E. (1990). US perspectives on casemix uses. Australian Casemix Bulletin, 2(4), 5–8.
10.
MartinC.L. (1986). AVGs: Framework for ambulatory care payment. Journal of the American Medical Record Association, 57(2), 26–30.
11.
SchneiderK.LichtensteinJ.FreemanJ.L.NewboldR.C.FetterR.B.GottliebL.LeafP.J.PortlockC.S. (1988). Ambulatory visit groups: An outpatient classification system. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 11(3), 1–12.
12.
ShlalaT. (1988). AVGs: Impact on the medical record department of acute care facilities. Journal of the American Medical Record Association, 59(1), 25–29.
13.
SchneeweissR.HartG. (1988). Diagnostic content of ambulatory primary care: Implications for resource utilization. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 11(3), 13–22.
14.
SchneeweissR.RosenblattR.A.CherkinD. C.KirkwoodC.R.HartG. (1983). Diagnosis clusters: A new tool for analyzing the content of ambulatory medical care. Medical Care, 21(1), 105–122.
15.
TenanP.M.FillmoreH.H.CaressB.KellyW.P.NelsonH.GrazianoD.JohnsonS.C., (1988). PACs: Classifying ambulatory care patients and services for clinical and financial management. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 11(3), 36–53.
16.
YoungW.JoyceD. Z.BivensG.D.LanderS.A.MacioceD.P. (1988). Incorporating the cost of ambulatory care into casemixed based hospital reimbursement. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 11(3), 54–67.
