Accuracy of death certificates in neonatal deaths.

S K Cole
{"title":"Accuracy of death certificates in neonatal deaths.","authors":"S K Cole","doi":"10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Death certificates of neonates were compared with detailed clinical and pathological information provided for a national neonatal mortality survey. The systematic method of assigning the cause of death to one of seven broad categories in the survey found complete agreement with the underlying cause of death on the death certificate in 83 per cent of cases (274/330). There was only a minor disagreement involving clinical opinion in a further 6.7 per cent (22). The reasons for disagreement in the remaining 10.3 per cent (34) were examined. In the majority of instances, 6.0 per cent (20), the fault lay with the certifying doctor who provided inadequate or inaccurate information on the death certificate or who, in providing all the information, appeared to be ignorant of coding rules. In 1.2 per cent (4) the fault lay with coding inaccuracies or misapplication of coding rules in failing to select the underlying cause in a correct sequence of clinical events. In the remaining 3.0 per cent (10) of cases the rules governing the survey did not follow the WHO coding rules.</p>","PeriodicalId":75726,"journal":{"name":"Community medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042440","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Death certificates of neonates were compared with detailed clinical and pathological information provided for a national neonatal mortality survey. The systematic method of assigning the cause of death to one of seven broad categories in the survey found complete agreement with the underlying cause of death on the death certificate in 83 per cent of cases (274/330). There was only a minor disagreement involving clinical opinion in a further 6.7 per cent (22). The reasons for disagreement in the remaining 10.3 per cent (34) were examined. In the majority of instances, 6.0 per cent (20), the fault lay with the certifying doctor who provided inadequate or inaccurate information on the death certificate or who, in providing all the information, appeared to be ignorant of coding rules. In 1.2 per cent (4) the fault lay with coding inaccuracies or misapplication of coding rules in failing to select the underlying cause in a correct sequence of clinical events. In the remaining 3.0 per cent (10) of cases the rules governing the survey did not follow the WHO coding rules.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新生儿死亡证明的准确性。
将新生儿死亡证明与全国新生儿死亡率调查提供的详细临床和病理信息进行比较。将死亡原因归为调查中七个大类之一的系统方法发现,83%的病例与死亡证明上的根本死亡原因完全一致(274/330)。在另外6.7%(22)的病例中,只有轻微的临床意见分歧。对其余10.3%(34)的意见不一致的原因进行了审查。在大多数情况下(6.0%),过失在于出具死亡证明的医生,他在死亡证明上提供的信息不充分或不准确,或者在提供所有信息时似乎不了解编码规则。在1.2%(4)的错误在于编码不准确或误用编码规则,未能在正确的临床事件序列中选择潜在的原因。在其余3.0%(10例)的病例中,有关调查的规则不符合世卫组织编码规则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of diagnosis-related groups in the National Health Service. Economic analysis in the evaluation of health promotion. A report of the investigation and control measures instituted after the isolation of toxin-producing Corynebacterium diphtheriae mitis from a child in Leeds. Communicable disease report. April to June 1989. The PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. Women's knowledge and experience of cervical screening: a failure of health education and medical organization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1