Carolyn De Coster1, Bing Li, Hude Quan. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Carolyn.DeCoster@calgaryheatlhregion.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of health administrative data in health services research is facilitated by standardized classification systems, such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Canada, among other countries, recently introduced the tenth version of ICD and its accompanying Canadian Classification of Interventions (CCI). It is imperative to assess errors that could occur in administrative data due to the introduction of the new coding system. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of procedure coding in hospital discharge data, comparing CCI with ICD-9-CM. RESEARCH DESIGN: Trained reviewers examined 4008 randomly selected charts from 4 teaching hospitals in Alberta, Canada, for the presence of 30 procedures. The charts, already coded using CCI, were recoded using ICD-9-CM. Comprehensive lists of procedure codes in both systems were identified using literature, health records technicians, surgeons and online resources. MEASURES: Three databases were created for the same hospital discharge record, including CCI, ICD-9-CM, and chart review data. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and kappa scores were calculated. RESULTS: Compared with the chart review data, ICD-9-CM data under-reported 17 procedures, over-reported 12, and equivalently reported 1. CCI data under-reported 19 procedures, over-reported 9, and equivalently reported 2. Kappa value was within 0.1 difference between ICD-9-CM and CCI for 14 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Both ICD-9-CM and CCI coded the more major or invasive procedures reasonably well, but were not valid for less invasive or minor procedures. CCI can be used by health services and population health researchers with as much confidence as ICD-9-CM.
BACKGROUND: The use of health administrative data in health services research is facilitated by standardized classification systems, such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Canada, among other countries, recently introduced the tenth version of ICD and its accompanying Canadian Classification of Interventions (CCI). It is imperative to assess errors that could occur in administrative data due to the introduction of the new coding system. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of procedure coding in hospital discharge data, comparing CCI with ICD-9-CM. RESEARCH DESIGN: Trained reviewers examined 4008 randomly selected charts from 4 teaching hospitals in Alberta, Canada, for the presence of 30 procedures. The charts, already coded using CCI, were recoded using ICD-9-CM. Comprehensive lists of procedure codes in both systems were identified using literature, health records technicians, surgeons and online resources. MEASURES: Three databases were created for the same hospital discharge record, including CCI, ICD-9-CM, and chart review data. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and kappa scores were calculated. RESULTS: Compared with the chart review data, ICD-9-CM data under-reported 17 procedures, over-reported 12, and equivalently reported 1. CCI data under-reported 19 procedures, over-reported 9, and equivalently reported 2. Kappa value was within 0.1 difference between ICD-9-CM and CCI for 14 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Both ICD-9-CM and CCI coded the more major or invasive procedures reasonably well, but were not valid for less invasive or minor procedures. CCI can be used by health services and population health researchers with as much confidence as ICD-9-CM.
Authors: Yana Gurevich; Anne McFarlane; Kathleen Morris; Aleksandra Jokovic; Gail M Peterson; Gregory K Webster Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2010 Aug-Sep Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Shouri Lahiri; Babak B Navi; Stephan A Mayer; Axel Rosengart; Alexander E Merkler; Jan Claassen; Hooman Kamel Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jacob K Greenberg; Travis R Ladner; Margaret A Olsen; Chevis N Shannon; Jingxia Liu; Chester K Yarbrough; Jay F Piccirillo; John C Wellons; Matthew D Smyth; Tae Sung Park; David D Limbrick Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Shouri Lahiri; Stephan A Mayer; Matthew E Fink; Aaron S Lord; Axel Rosengart; Halinder S Mangat; Alan Z Segal; Jan Claassen; Hooman Kamel Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Travis R Ladner; Jacob K Greenberg; Nicole Guerrero; Margaret A Olsen; Chevis N Shannon; Chester K Yarbrough; Jay F Piccirillo; Richard C E Anderson; Neil A Feldstein; John C Wellons; Matthew D Smyth; Tae Sung Park; David D Limbrick Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 2.375