Literature DB >> 33827567

Exploring the differences in ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features across countries: an international survey.

Lucia Otero Varela1,2, Chelsea Doktorchik3, Natalie Wiebe3, Hude Quan3,4, Catherine Eastwood5,6.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Data collection features; Hospital morbidity database; International classification of diseases; International comparability; Surveys and questionnaires

Year:  2021        PMID: 33827567     DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06302-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res        ISSN: 1472-6963            Impact factor:   2.655


  15 in total

1.  ICD-10: History and Context.

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

2.  Under-coding of secondary conditions in coded hospital health data: Impact of co-existing conditions, death status and number of codes in a record.

Authors:  Mingkai Peng; Danielle A Southern; Tyler Williamson; Hude Quan
Journal:  Health Informatics J       Date:  2016-05-08       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  An Introduction to Health Care Administrative Data.

Authors:  Suzanne M Cadarette; Lindsay Wong
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2015 May-Jun

4.  International variation in the definition of 'main condition' in ICD-coded health data.

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

5.  How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety.

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

6.  Bias in the coding of hospital discharge data and its implications for quality assessment.

Authors:  P S Romano; D H Mark
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Evaluating the impact of expanding the number of diagnosis codes reported in inpatient discharge databases on the counts and rates of birth defects.

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

8.  The development, evolution, and modifications of ICD-10: challenges to the international comparability of morbidity data.

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

9.  Validation of a case definition for depression in administrative data against primary chart data as a reference standard.

Authors:  Chelsea Doktorchik; Scott Patten; Cathy Eastwood; Mingkai Peng; Guanmin Chen; Cynthia A Beck; Nathalie Jetté; Tyler Williamson; Hude Quan
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 3.630

10.  Are Increasing Trends in Opioid-Related Hospitalizations Attributable to Increases in Diagnosis Recordability? Evidence from 2 Large States.

Authors:  Alina Denham; Teraisa Mullaney; Elaine L Hill; Peter J Veazie
Journal:  Health Serv Insights       Date:  2019-07-11
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  ADHD and Neurodegenerative Disease Risk: A Critical Examination of the Evidence.

Authors:  Sara Becker; Manu J Sharma; Brandy L Callahan
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 5.750

2.  Neurocysticercosis in Latin America: Current epidemiological situation based on official statistics from four countries.

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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.