Lucia Otero Varela1,2, Chelsea Doktorchik3, Natalie Wiebe3, Hude Quan3,4, Catherine Eastwood5,6. 1. University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, TRW 5th Floor, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada. lucia.oterovarela@ucalgary.ca. 2. Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, HMRB (Room 72), 3310 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada. lucia.oterovarela@ucalgary.ca. 3. University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, TRW 5th Floor, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada. 4. Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, HMRB (Room 72), 3310 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada. 5. University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, TRW 5th Floor, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada. caeastwo@ucalgary.ca. 6. Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, HMRB (Room 72), 3310 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada. caeastwo@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the reference standard for reporting diseases and health conditions globally. Variations in ICD use and data collection across countries can hinder meaningful comparisons of morbidity data. Thus, we aimed to characterize ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features worldwide. METHODS: An online questionnaire was created to poll the World Health Organization (WHO) member countries that were using ICD. The survey included questions focused on ICD meta-features and hospital data collection systems, and was distributed via SurveyMonkey using purposive and snowball sampling. Accordingly, senior representatives from organizations specialized in the topic, such as WHO Collaborating Centers, and other experts in ICD coding were invited to fill out the survey and forward the questionnaire to their peers. Answers were collated by country, analyzed, and presented in a narrative form with descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Responses from 47 participants were collected, representing 26 different countries using ICD. Results indicated worldwide disparities in the ICD meta-features regarding the maximum allowable coding fields for diagnosis, the definition of main condition, and the mandatory type of data fields in the hospital morbidity database. Accordingly, the most frequently reported answers were "reason for admission" as main condition definition (n = 14), having 31 or more diagnostic fields available (n = 12), and "Diagnoses" (n = 26) and "Patient demographics" (n = 25) for mandatory data fields. Discrepancies in data collection systems occurred between but also within countries, thereby revealing a lack of standardization both at the international and national level. Additionally, some countries reported specific data collection features, including the use or misuse of ICD coding, the national standards for coding or lack thereof, and the electronic abstracting systems utilized in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonizing ICD coding standards/guidelines should be a common goal to enhance international comparisons of health data. The current international status of ICD data collection highlights the need for the promotion of ICD and the adoption of the newest version, ICD-11. Furthermore, it will encourage further research on how to improve and standardize ICD coding.
BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the reference standard for reporting diseases and health conditions globally. Variations in ICD use and data collection across countries can hinder meaningful comparisons of morbidity data. Thus, we aimed to characterize ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features worldwide. METHODS: An online questionnaire was created to poll the World Health Organization (WHO) member countries that were using ICD. The survey included questions focused on ICD meta-features and hospital data collection systems, and was distributed via SurveyMonkey using purposive and snowball sampling. Accordingly, senior representatives from organizations specialized in the topic, such as WHO Collaborating Centers, and other experts in ICD coding were invited to fill out the survey and forward the questionnaire to their peers. Answers were collated by country, analyzed, and presented in a narrative form with descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Responses from 47 participants were collected, representing 26 different countries using ICD. Results indicated worldwide disparities in the ICD meta-features regarding the maximum allowable coding fields for diagnosis, the definition of main condition, and the mandatory type of data fields in the hospital morbidity database. Accordingly, the most frequently reported answers were "reason for admission" as main condition definition (n = 14), having 31 or more diagnostic fields available (n = 12), and "Diagnoses" (n = 26) and "Patient demographics" (n = 25) for mandatory data fields. Discrepancies in data collection systems occurred between but also within countries, thereby revealing a lack of standardization both at the international and national level. Additionally, some countries reported specific data collection features, including the use or misuse of ICD coding, the national standards for coding or lack thereof, and the electronic abstracting systems utilized in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonizing ICD coding standards/guidelines should be a common goal to enhance international comparisons of health data. The current international status of ICD data collection highlights the need for the promotion of ICD and the adoption of the newest version, ICD-11. Furthermore, it will encourage further research on how to improve and standardize ICD coding.
Entities:
Keywords:
Data collection features; Hospital morbidity database; International classification of diseases; International comparability; Surveys and questionnaires
Authors: J A Hirsch; G Nicola; G McGinty; R W Liu; R M Barr; M D Chittle; L Manchikanti Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: H Quan; L Moskal; A J Forster; S Brien; R Walker; P S Romano; V Sundararajan; B Burnand; G Henriksson; O Steinum; S Droesler; H A Pincus; W A Ghali Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Saskia E Drösler; Patrick S Romano; Vijaya Sundararajan; Bernard Burnand; Cyrille Colin; Harold Pincus; William Ghali Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Jason L Salemi; Rachel E Rutkowski; Jean Paul Tanner; Jennifer Matas; Russell S Kirby Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Nathalie Jetté; Hude Quan; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Saskia Drosler; Christina Maass; Lori Moskal; Wansa Paoin; Vijaya Sundararajan; Song Gao; Robert Jakob; Bedihran Ustün; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Roberto Rodríguez-Rivas; Ana Flisser; Luiz Fernando Norcia; Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho; D Katterine Bonilla-Aldana; Alfonso J Rodriguez-Morales; Arturo Carpio; Matthew L Romo; Agnès Fleury Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2022-08-29