Accuracy of ICD-10 Codes for Suicidal Ideation and Action in Pediatric Emergency Department Encounters

Rena Xu, Louisa Bode, Alon Geva, Kenneth D. Mandl, Andrew J. McMurry
{"title":"Accuracy of ICD-10 Codes for Suicidal Ideation and Action in Pediatric Emergency Department Encounters","authors":"Rena Xu, Louisa Bode, Alon Geva, Kenneth D. Mandl, Andrew J. McMurry","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.23.24310777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: According to the ideation-to-action framework of suicidality, suicidal ideation and suicidal action arise via distinct trajectories. Studying suicidality under this framework requires accurate identification of both ideation and action. We sought to assess the accuracy of ICD-10 codes for suicidal ideation and action in emergency department (ED) encounters. Methods: Accuracy of ICD-10 coding for suicidality was assessed through chart review of clinical notes for 205 ED encounters among patients 6-18 years old at a large academic pediatric hospital between June 1, 2016, and June 1, 2022. Physician notes were reviewed for documentation of past or present suicidal ideation, suicidal action, or both. The study cohort consisted of 103 randomly selected \"cases,\" or encounters assigned at least one ICD-10 code for suicidality, and 102 propensity-matched \"non-cases\" lacking ICD-10 codes. Accuracy of ICD-10 codes was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).\nResults: Against a gold standard chart review, the PPV for ICD-10 suicidality codes was 86.9%, and the NPV was 76.2%. Nearly half of encounters involving suicidality were not captured by ICD-10 coding (sensitivity=53.4%). Sensitivity was higher for ideation-present (82.4%) than for action-present (33.7%) or action-past (20.4%).\nConclusions: Many cases of suicidality may be missed by relying on only ICD-10 codes. Accuracy of ICD-10 codes is high for suicidal ideation but low for action. To scale the ideation-to-action model for use in large populations, better data sources are needed to identify cases of suicidal action.","PeriodicalId":501549,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Pediatrics","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.23.24310777","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: According to the ideation-to-action framework of suicidality, suicidal ideation and suicidal action arise via distinct trajectories. Studying suicidality under this framework requires accurate identification of both ideation and action. We sought to assess the accuracy of ICD-10 codes for suicidal ideation and action in emergency department (ED) encounters. Methods: Accuracy of ICD-10 coding for suicidality was assessed through chart review of clinical notes for 205 ED encounters among patients 6-18 years old at a large academic pediatric hospital between June 1, 2016, and June 1, 2022. Physician notes were reviewed for documentation of past or present suicidal ideation, suicidal action, or both. The study cohort consisted of 103 randomly selected "cases," or encounters assigned at least one ICD-10 code for suicidality, and 102 propensity-matched "non-cases" lacking ICD-10 codes. Accuracy of ICD-10 codes was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Against a gold standard chart review, the PPV for ICD-10 suicidality codes was 86.9%, and the NPV was 76.2%. Nearly half of encounters involving suicidality were not captured by ICD-10 coding (sensitivity=53.4%). Sensitivity was higher for ideation-present (82.4%) than for action-present (33.7%) or action-past (20.4%). Conclusions: Many cases of suicidality may be missed by relying on only ICD-10 codes. Accuracy of ICD-10 codes is high for suicidal ideation but low for action. To scale the ideation-to-action model for use in large populations, better data sources are needed to identify cases of suicidal action.
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
儿科急诊中自杀意念和行动的 ICD-10 编码的准确性
目的:根据 "从意念到行动 "的自杀框架,自杀意念和自杀行动是通过不同的轨迹产生的。在此框架下研究自杀倾向需要准确识别意念和行动。我们试图评估急诊科(ED)中自杀意念和行动的 ICD-10 编码的准确性。方法:通过对一家大型学术儿科医院 2016 年 6 月 1 日至 2022 年 6 月 1 日期间 205 例 6-18 岁急诊室就诊患者的临床记录进行病历审查,评估了自杀倾向 ICD-10 编码的准确性。研究人员查阅了医生记录,以确定是否有过去或现在的自杀意念、自杀行为或两者兼而有之的记录。研究队列包括 103 个随机抽取的 "病例"(或至少有一个 ICD-10 自杀行为代码的病例)和 102 个缺乏 ICD-10 代码的倾向匹配 "非病例"。使用灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)对 ICD-10 编码的准确性进行评估:结果:对照金标准病历审查,ICD-10 自杀症代码的 PPV 为 86.9%,NPV 为 76.2%。近一半涉及自杀的病例未被 ICD-10 编码捕获(灵敏度=53.4%)。意念-现在(82.4%)的灵敏度高于行动-现在(33.7%)或行动-过去(20.4%):结论:仅依靠 ICD-10 编码可能会遗漏许多自杀病例。ICD-10编码对自杀意念的准确性较高,但对行动的准确性较低。要在大量人群中推广从意念到行动的模型,需要更好的数据源来识别自杀行动病例。
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
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Nirsevimab in Reducing Pediatric RSV Hospitalizations in Spain The Impact of Chlorinated Drinking Water Exposure on Gut Microbiota Development in Infants: a Randomised Controlled Trial. Development of a Novel Dynamic Leak Model to Simulate Leak for Performance Testing of Manual Neonatal Resuscitation Devices. Does Leak Matter? A Bench Study How young people experienced Long COVID services: a qualitative analysis. Knowledge of Childhood and Adolescent Cancer Among Primary Caregivers: An Observational and Prospective Study
×
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