OBJECTIVE: To examine potential sources of errors at each step of the described inpatient International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding process. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The use of disease codes from the ICD has expanded from classifying morbidity and mortality information for statistical purposes to diverse sets of applications in research, health care policy, and health care finance. By describing a brief history of ICD coding, detailing the process for assigning codes, identifying where errors can be introduced into the process, and reviewing methods for examining code accuracy, we help code users more systematically evaluate code accuracy for their particular applications. STUDY DESIGN/ METHODS: We summarize the inpatient ICD diagnostic coding process from patient admission to diagnostic code assignment. We examine potential sources of errors at each step and offer code users a tool for systematically evaluating code accuracy. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Main error sources along the "patient trajectory" include amount and quality of information at admission, communication among patients and providers, the clinician's knowledge and experience with the illness, and the clinician's attention to detail. Main error sources along the "paper trail" include variance in the electronic and written records, coder training and experience, facility quality-control efforts, and unintentional and intentional coder errors, such as misspecification, unbundling, and upcoding. CONCLUSIONS: By clearly specifying the code assignment process and heightening their awareness of potential error sources, code users can better evaluate the applicability and limitations of codes for their particular situations. ICD codes can then be used in the most appropriate ways.
OBJECTIVE: To examine potential sources of errors at each step of the described inpatient International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding process. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The use of disease codes from the ICD has expanded from classifying morbidity and mortality information for statistical purposes to diverse sets of applications in research, health care policy, and health care finance. By describing a brief history of ICD coding, detailing the process for assigning codes, identifying where errors can be introduced into the process, and reviewing methods for examining code accuracy, we help code users more systematically evaluate code accuracy for their particular applications. STUDY DESIGN/ METHODS: We summarize the inpatient ICD diagnostic coding process from patient admission to diagnostic code assignment. We examine potential sources of errors at each step and offer code users a tool for systematically evaluating code accuracy. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Main error sources along the "patient trajectory" include amount and quality of information at admission, communication among patients and providers, the clinician's knowledge and experience with the illness, and the clinician's attention to detail. Main error sources along the "paper trail" include variance in the electronic and written records, coder training and experience, facility quality-control efforts, and unintentional and intentional coder errors, such as misspecification, unbundling, and upcoding. CONCLUSIONS: By clearly specifying the code assignment process and heightening their awareness of potential error sources, code users can better evaluate the applicability and limitations of codes for their particular situations. ICD codes can then be used in the most appropriate ways.
Authors: Jose M Ornelas-Aguirre; Gonzalo Vázquez-Camacho; Laura Gonzalez-Lopez; Araceli Garcia-Gonzalez; Jorge I Gamez-Nava Journal: Ann Diagn Pathol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.090
Authors: L B Goldstein; M R Jones; D B Matchar; L J Edwards; J Hoff; V Chilukuri; S B Armstrong; R D Horner Journal: Stroke Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Andrea Charbonneau; Amy K Rosen; Arlene S Ash; Richard R Owen; Boris Kader; Avron Spiro; Cheryl Hankin; Lawrence R Herz; Mary Jo V Pugh; Lewis Kazis; Donald R Miller; Dan R Berlowitz Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lisa A Jackson; Kathleen M Neuzil; Onchee Yu; Patti Benson; William E Barlow; Annette L Adams; Christi A Hanson; Lisa D Mahoney; David K Shay; William W Thompson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patricia A Cavazos-Rehg; Melissa J Krauss; Edward L Spitznagel; Kerry Bommarito; Tessa Madden; Margaret A Olsen; Harini Subramaniam; Jeffrey F Peipert; Laura Jean Bierut Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2015-06
Authors: Elsbeth Kalenderian; Rachel L Ramoni; Joel M White; Meta E Schoonheim-Klein; Paul C Stark; Nicole S Kimmes; Gregory G Zeller; George P Willis; Muhammad F Walji Journal: J Dent Educ Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: P Mendiratta; J M Tilford; P Prodhan; K Curseen; G Azhar; Jeanne Y Wei Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: Shia T Kent; Daichi Shimbo; Lei Huang; Keith M Diaz; Anthony J Viera; Meredith Kilgore; Suzanne Oparil; Paul Muntner Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2014-10-02