![](media/image1.png){width="5.972916666666666in"
height="0.4791666666666667in"}

Top of Form

## Complete Summary

#### TITLE

Iatrogenic pneumothorax (area-level): rate per 100,000 population.

#### SOURCE(S)

AHRQ quality indicators. Guide to patient safety indicators \[version
3.1\]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ)AHRQ Pub; 2007 Mar 12. 76 p.(AHRQ Pub; no. 03-R203).

### Measure Domain

#### PRIMARY MEASURE DOMAIN

Population Health

The validity of measures depends on how they are built. By examining the
key building blocks of a measure, you can assess its validity for your
purpose. For more information, visit the [Measure
Validity](http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/resources/measure_domains.aspx)
page.

#### SECONDARY MEASURE DOMAIN

Does not apply to this measure

### Brief Abstract

#### DESCRIPTION

This measure is used to assess the number of cases of iatrogenic
pneumothorax per 100,000 population.

#### RATIONALE

Hospitals in the United States provide the setting for some of life\'s
most pivotal events - the birth of a child, major surgery, treatment for
otherwise fatal illnesses. These hospitals house the most sophisticated
medical technology in the world and provide state-of-the-art diagnostic
and therapeutic services. But access to these services comes with
certain costs. About 30% of personal health care expenditures in the
United States go towards hospital care, and the rate of growth in
spending for hospital services has only recently leveled out after
several years of increases following a half a decade of declining
growth. Simultaneously, concerns about the quality of health care
services have reached a crescendo with the Institute of Medicine\'s
series of reports describing the problem of medical errors and the need
for a complete restructuring of the health care system to improve the
quality of care. Policymakers, employers, and consumers have made the
quality of care in U.S. hospitals a top priority and have voiced the
need to assess, monitor, track, and improve the quality of inpatient
care.

Widespread consensus exists that health care organizations can reduce
patient injuries by improving the environment for safety from
implementing technical changes, such as electronic medical record
systems, to improving staff awareness of patient safety risks. Clinical
process interventions also have strong evidence for reducing the risk of
adverse events related to a patient\'s exposure to hospital care.
Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), which are based on computerized
hospital discharge abstracts from the AHRQ\'s Healthcare Cost and
Utilization Project (HCUP), can be used to better prioritize and
evaluate local and national initiatives. Analyses of these and similar
inexpensive, readily available administrative data sets may provide a
screen for potential medical errors and a method for monitoring trends
over time.

The Iatrogenic Pneumothorax indicator is intended to flag cases of
pneumothorax caused by medical care. This indicator is defined on both a
provider level (by including all cases of iatrogenic pneumothorax
occurring as a secondary diagnosis during hospitalization) and on an
area level (by including all cases of iatrogenic pneumothorax) (see the
related National Quality Measures Clearinghouse \[NQMC\] summary of the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality \[AHRQ\] indicator
[Iatrogenic pneumothorax (provider-level): rate per 1,000
discharges](http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?ss=1&doc_id=10687&string=3119)).

#### PRIMARY CLINICAL COMPONENT

Iatrogenic pneumothorax

#### DENOMINATOR DESCRIPTION

Population of county or Metro Area associated with Federal Information
Processing Standards (FIPS) code of patient\'s residence or hospital
location

#### NUMERATOR DESCRIPTION

Discharges, 18 years and older, with International Classification of
Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code of 512.1
in any diagnosis field (principal or secondary) of medical and surgical
discharges defined by specific Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs)

Exclude cases:

-   Major Diagnostic Category (MDC) 14 (pregnancy, childbirth, and
    puerperium)

-   with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code of chest trauma or pleural effusion

-   with an ICD-9-CM procedure code of diaphragmatic surgery repair

-   with any code indicating thoracic surgery or lung or pleural biopsy
    or assigned to cardiac surgery DRGs

**Note**: Refer to the Technical Specifications document cited in the
\"Companion Documents\" field for specific ICD-9-CM codes and DRGs.

### Evidence Supporting the Measure

#### EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE VALUE OF MONITORING THE ASPECT OF POPULATION HEALTH

-   A formal consensus procedure involving experts in relevant clinical,
    methodological, and organizational sciences

-   One or more research studies published in a National Library of
    Medicine (NLM) indexed, peer-reviewed journal

### Evidence Supporting Need for the Measure

#### NEED FOR THE MEASURE

Monitoring health state(s)\
Variation in health state(s)

#### EVIDENCE SUPPORTING NEED FOR THE MEASURE

AHRQ quality indicators. Guide to patient safety indicators \[version
3.1\]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ)AHRQ Pub; 2007 Mar 12. 76 p.(AHRQ Pub; no. 03-R203).

### State of Use of the Measure

#### STATE OF USE

Current routine use

#### CURRENT USE

Federal health policymaking\
Monitoring health state(s)\
National reporting\
State health policymaking

### Application of Measure in its Current Use

#### CARE SETTING

Unspecified

#### PROFESSIONALS RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTH CARE

Physicians\
Public Health Professionals

#### LOWEST LEVEL OF HEALTH CARE DELIVERY ADDRESSED

Counties or Cities

#### TARGET POPULATION AGE

Age greater than or equal to 18 years

#### TARGET POPULATION GENDER

Either male or female

#### STRATIFICATION BY VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

Unspecified

### Characteristics of the Primary Clinical Component

#### INCIDENCE/PREVALENCE

Unspecified

#### ASSOCIATION WITH VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

Unspecified

#### BURDEN OF ILLNESS

Unspecified

#### UTILIZATION

Unspecified

#### COSTS

Unspecified

### Institute of Medicine National Healthcare Quality Report Categories

#### IOM CARE NEED

Getting Better

#### IOM DOMAIN

Safety

### Data Collection for the Measure

#### CASE FINDING

Both users and nonusers of care

#### DESCRIPTION OF CASE FINDING

Population of county or Metro Area associated with Federal Information
Processing Standards (FIPS) code of patient\'s residence or hospital
location

#### DENOMINATOR SAMPLING FRAME

Geographically defined

#### DENOMINATOR INCLUSIONS/EXCLUSIONS

**Inclusions**\
Population of county or Metro Area associated with Federal Information
Processing Standards (FIPS) code of patient\'s residence or hospital
location

**Exclusions**\
Unspecified

#### RELATIONSHIP OF DENOMINATOR TO NUMERATOR

All cases in the denominator are not equally eligible to appear in the
numerator

#### DENOMINATOR (INDEX) EVENT 

Patient Characteristic

#### DENOMINATOR TIME WINDOW

Time window is a single point in time

#### NUMERATOR INCLUSIONS/EXCLUSIONS

**Inclusions**\
Discharges, 18 years and older, with International Classification of
Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code of 512.1
in any diagnosis field (principal or secondary) of medical and surgical
discharges defined by specific Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs)

**Exclusions**\
Exclude cases:

-   Major Diagnostic Category (MDC) 14 (pregnancy, childbirth,
    puerperium)

-   with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code of chest trauma or pleural effusion

-   with an ICD-9-CM procedure code of diaphragmatic surgery repair

-   with any code indicating thoracic surgery or lung or pleural biopsy
    or assigned to cardiac surgery DRGs

**Note**: Refer to the Technical Specifications document cited in the
\"Companion Documents\" field for specific ICD-9-CM codes and DRGs.

#### MEASURE RESULTS UNDER CONTROL OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS, ORGANIZATIONS AND/OR POLICYMAKERS

The measure results are somewhat or substantially under the control of
the health care professionals, organizations and/or policymakers to whom
the measure applies.

#### NUMERATOR TIME WINDOW

Unspecified

#### DATA SOURCE

Administrative data\
National public health data

#### LEVEL OF DETERMINATION OF QUALITY

Does not apply to this measure

#### TYPE OF HEALTH STATE

Adverse Health State

#### PRE-EXISTING INSTRUMENT USED

Unspecified

### Computation of the Measure

#### SCORING

Rate

#### INTERPRETATION OF SCORE

A lower score is desirable

#### ALLOWANCE FOR PATIENT FACTORS

Unspecified

#### STANDARD OF COMPARISON

External comparison at a point in time\
External comparison of time trends\
Internal time comparison

### Evaluation of Measure Properties

#### EXTENT OF MEASURE TESTING

The Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) were evaluated by the project team
using empirical analyses to explore the frequency and variation of the
indicators, the potential bias, based on limited risk adjustment, and
the relationship between indicators. The data sources used in the
empirical analyses were the 1997 Florida State Inpatient Database (SID)
for initial testing and development and the 1997 Healthcare Cost and
Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Database for 19 States for
the final empirical analyses.

All potential indicators were examined empirically by developing and
conducting statistical tests for precision, bias, and relatedness of
indicators. Three different estimates of hospital performance were
calculated for each indicator:

1.  The raw indicator rate was calculated using the number of adverse
    events in the numerator divided by the number of discharges in the
    population at risk by hospital.

2.  The raw indicator was adjusted to account for differences among
    hospitals in age, gender, modified Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG),
    and comorbidities.

3.  Multivariate signal extraction methods were applied to adjust for
    reliability by estimating the amount of \"noise\" (i.e., variation
    due to random error) relative to the amount of \"signal\" (i.e.,
    systematic variation in hospital performance or reliability) for
    each indicator.

The project team constructed a set of statistical tests to examine the
precision, bias, and relatedness of indicators for all accepted
Provider-level Indicators, and precision and bias for all accepted
Area-level Indicators. It should be noted that rates based on fewer than
30 cases in the numerator or the denominator are not reported.

The project team conducted a structured review of each indicator to
evaluate the face validity (from a clinical perspective) of the
indicators. The methodology for the structured review was adapted from
the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and consisted of an initial
independent assessment of each indicator by clinician panelists using an
initial questionnaire, a conference call among all panelists, followed
by a final independent assessment by clinician panelists using the same
questionnaire. The review sought to establish *consensual validity*,
which \"extends face validity from one expert to a panel of experts who
examine and rate the appropriateness of each item\...\" The panel
process served to refine definitions of some indicators, add new
measures, and dismiss indicators with major concerns from further
consideration.

Refer to the original measure documentation for additional details.

#### EVIDENCE FOR RELIABILITY/VALIDITY TESTING

AHRQ quality indicators. Guide to patient safety indicators \[version
3.1\]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ)AHRQ Pub; 2007 Mar 12. 76 p.(AHRQ Pub; no. 03-R203).

### Identifying Information

#### ORIGINAL TITLE

Iatrogenic pneumothorax (area level definition) (PSI 22).

#### MEASURE COLLECTION

[Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Quality
Indicators](http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/Browse/DisplayOrganization.aspx?org_id=9&doc=341)

#### MEASURE SET NAME

[Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety
Indicators](http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/Browse/DisplayOrganization.aspx?org_id=9&doc=4063)

#### DEVELOPER

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

#### INCLUDED IN

National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR)

#### ADAPTATION

This diagnosis code was proposed by Miller and colleagues (2001) as one
component of a broader indicator (\"iatrogenic conditions\") in the
\"Patient Safety Indicator Algorithms and Groupings.\" It was also
included as one component of a broader indicator (\"adverse events and
iatrogenic complications\") in the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality\'s (AHRQ\'s) Version 1.3 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project
(HCUP) Quality Indicators.

#### RELEASE DATE

2003 Mar

#### REVISION DATE

2007 Mar

#### MEASURE STATUS

This is the current release of the measure.

This measure updates a previous version: AHRQ quality indicators. Guide
to patient safety indicators \[version 3.0a\]. Rockville (MD): Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2006 May 1. 78 p. (AHRQ Pub;
no. 03-R203).

#### SOURCE(S)

AHRQ quality indicators. Guide to patient safety indicators \[version
3.1\]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ)AHRQ Pub; 2007 Mar 12. 76 p.(AHRQ Pub; no. 03-R203).

#### MEASURE AVAILABILITY

The individual measure, \"Iatrogenic Pneumothorax (Area Level
Definition) (PSI 22),\" is published in \"AHRQ Quality Indicators. Guide
to Patient Safety Indicators.\" This document is available in [Portable
Document Format
(PDF)](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/psi/psi_guide_v31.pdf)
from the [Patient Safety Indicators
Download](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/psi_download.htm) page
at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Quality
Indicators Web site.

For more information, please contact the QI Support Team at
<support@qualityindicators.ahrq.gov>.

#### COMPANION DOCUMENTS

The following are available:

-   AHRQ quality indicators. Patient safety indicators: technical
    specifications \[version 3.1\]. Rockville (MD): Agency for
    Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2007 Mar 12. 107 p.

-   AHRQ quality indicators. Patient safety indicators: software
    documentation \[version 3.1\] - SAS. Rockville (MD): Agency for
    Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2007 Mar 12. 42 p. This
    document is available in PDF from the [AHRQ Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/psi/psi_sas_documentation_v31.pdf).

-   AHRQ quality indicators. Software documentation: Windows \[version
    3.1a\]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    (AHRQ); 2007 Apr 6. 99 p. This document is available in PDF from the
    [AHRQ Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/winqi/AHRQ_QI_Windows_Software_Documentation_V31a.pdf).

-   Patient safety indicators: covariates \[version 3.1\]. Rockville
    (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2007
    Mar 12. 27 p. This document is available in PDF from the [AHRQ
    Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/psi/psi_covariates_v31.pdf).

-   Patient safety indicators: covariates (with POA) \[version 3.1\].
    Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ);
    2007 Mar 12. 27 p. This document is available in PDF from the [AHRQ
    Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/psi/psi_covariates_poa_v31.pdf).

-   Remus D, Fraser I. Guidance for using the AHRQ quality indicators
    for hospital-level public reporting or payment. Rockville (MD):
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004 Aug. 24 p. This
    document is available in PDF from the [AHRQ Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/archives/documents/qi_guidance.pdf).

-   AHRQ summary statement on comparative hospital public reporting.
    Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ);
    2005 Dec. 1 p. This document is available in PDF from the [AHRQ
    Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/news/AHRQSummaryStatement.pdf).

-   Guidance for using the AHRQ quality indicators for public reporting
    or payment - appendix A: current uses of AHRQ quality indicators and
    considerations for hospital-level reporting. Rockville (MD): Agency
    for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2005 Dec. A1-13 p. This
    document is available in PDF from the [AHRQ Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/technical/qi_guidance_appendix_A.pdf).

-   Guidance for using the AHRQ quality indicators for public reporting
    or payment - appendix B: public reporting evaluation
    framework\--comparison of recommended evaluation criteria in five
    existing national frameworks. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare
    Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2005 Dec. B1-4 p. This document is
    available in PDF from the [AHRQ Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/technical/qi_guidance_appendix_B.pdf).

-   UCSF-Stanford Evidence-based Practice Center. Davies GM, Geppert J,
    McClellan M, et al. Refinement of the HCUP quality indicators.
    Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ);
    2001 May. (Technical review; no. 4). This document is available in
    PDF from the [AHRQ Quality Indicators Web
    site](http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/technical/qi_technical_summary.pdf).

-   HCUPnet. \[internet\]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare
    Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2004 \[accessed 2007 May 21\].
    \[Various pagings\]. HCUPnet is available from the [AHRQ Web
    site](http://hcup.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.asp). See the related
    [QualityTools](http://www.innovations.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=543)
    summary.

#### NQMC STATUS

This NQMC summary was completed by ECRI on October 1, 2003. The
information was verified by the measure developer on October 29, 2003.
This NQMC summary was updated by ECRI on February 7, 2005, February 9,
2006, and June 13, 2006. The information was verified by the measure
developer on July 31, 2006. This NQMC summary was updated again by ECRI
on June 12, 2007.

#### COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

No copyright restrictions apply.

### Disclaimer

#### NQMC DISCLAIMER

The National Quality Measures Clearinghouse™ (NQMC) does not develop,
produce, approve, or endorse the measures represented on this site.

All measures summarized by NQMC and hosted on our site are produced
under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional
associations, public and private organizations, other government
agencies, health care organizations or plans, individuals, and similar
entities.

Measures represented on the NQMC Web site are submitted by measure
developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NQMC
Inclusion Criteria which may be found at
<http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/about/inclusion.aspx>.

NQMC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties
concerning the content or its reliability and/or validity of the quality
measures and related materials represented on this site. The inclusion
or hosting of measures in NQMC may not be used for advertising or
commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding measure content are directed to contact
the measure developer.

Bottom of Form

© 2008 National Quality Measures Clearinghouse

Date Modified: 11/3/2008