Danielle M Brathwaite1, Catherine S Wolff2, Amy I Ising3, Scott K Proescholdbell4, Anna E Waller3. 1. 41474 Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. 2331 Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. 114146 Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolina Center for Health Informatics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Injury and Violence Prevention Branch, Division of Public Health, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the differences between the first version of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) opioid surveillance definition for suspected nonfatal opioid overdoses (hereinafter, CDC definition) and the North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool (NC DETECT) surveillance definition to determine whether the North Carolina definition should include additional International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes and/or chief complaint keywords. METHODS: Two independent reviewers retrospectively reviewed data on North Carolina emergency department (ED) visits generated by components of the CDC definition not included in the NC DETECT definition from January 1 through July 31, 2018. Clinical reviewers identified false positives as any ED visit in which available evidence supported an alternative explanation for patient presentation deemed more likely than an opioid overdose. After individual assessment, reviewers reconciled disagreements. RESULTS: We identified 2296 ED visits under the CDC definition that were not identified under the NC DETECT definition during the study period. False-positive rates ranged from 2.6% to 41.4% for codes and keywords uniquely identifying ≥10 ED visits. Based on uniquely identifying ≥10 ED visits and a false-positive rate ≤10.0%, 4 of 16 ICD-10-CM codes evaluated were identified for NC DETECT definition inclusion. Only 2 of 25 keywords evaluated, "OD" and "overdose," met inclusion criteria to be considered a meaningful addition to the NC DETECT definition. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Quantitative and qualitative trends in coding and keyword use identified in this analysis may prove helpful for future evaluations of surveillance definitions.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the differences between the first version of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) opioid surveillance definition for suspected nonfatal opioid overdoses (hereinafter, CDC definition) and the North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool (NC DETECT) surveillance definition to determine whether the North Carolina definition should include additional International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes and/or chief complaint keywords. METHODS: Two independent reviewers retrospectively reviewed data on North Carolina emergency department (ED) visits generated by components of the CDC definition not included in the NC DETECT definition from January 1 through July 31, 2018. Clinical reviewers identified false positives as any ED visit in which available evidence supported an alternative explanation for patient presentation deemed more likely than an opioid overdose. After individual assessment, reviewers reconciled disagreements. RESULTS: We identified 2296 ED visits under the CDC definition that were not identified under the NC DETECT definition during the study period. False-positive rates ranged from 2.6% to 41.4% for codes and keywords uniquely identifying ≥10 ED visits. Based on uniquely identifying ≥10 ED visits and a false-positive rate ≤10.0%, 4 of 16 ICD-10-CM codes evaluated were identified for NC DETECT definition inclusion. Only 2 of 25 keywords evaluated, "OD" and "overdose," met inclusion criteria to be considered a meaningful addition to the NC DETECT definition. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Quantitative and qualitative trends in coding and keyword use identified in this analysis may prove helpful for future evaluations of surveillance definitions.
Authors: Svetla Slavova; Dana Quesinberry; Julia F Costich; Emilia Pasalic; Pedro Martinez; Julia Martin; Sarah Eustice; Peter Akpunonu; Terry L Bunn Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Amy Ising; Scott Proescholdbell; Katherine J Harmon; Nidhi Sachdeva; Stephen W Marshall; Anna E Waller Journal: Inj Prev Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.399
Authors: Alana M Vivolo-Kantor; Puja Seth; R Matthew Gladden; Christine L Mattson; Grant T Baldwin; Aaron Kite-Powell; Michael A Coletta Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 17.586