{"title":"Evaluation of Diagnoses According to ICD-10 and ICPC-2 in Family Medicine Practice: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Olgun Göktaş","doi":"10.1155/ijcp/7146424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Introduction:</b> After the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, briefly ICD (ICD-10), the World Health Organization (WHO) accepted the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2) as a reason for encounter classification of diagnoses in primary healthcare services. The study aimed to assess the degree of alignment between diagnoses encoded with the ICD-10 and, those coded using the ICPC-2.</p>\n <p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> We collected the diagnoses coded with the ICD-10 of 42,782 patients registered in the Uludağ University Family Health Center, Bursa, Turkey. The ICD-10 codes were converted to ICPC-2 codes with the program in the family medicine information registration system. Diagnoses in the database were analyzed. <i>p</i> values less than 0.05 were considered significant in the study. Analyses were made with the SPSS 25.0 package program.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> Of the 42,782 diagnoses with codes in ICD-10, a total of 218 diagnoses (0.51%) did not have an equivalent in ICPC-2. On the other hand, it was determined that a total of 463 diagnoses (1.08%) in ICD-10 had 2 or more codes in ICPC-2.</p>\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> According to our results in family medicine practice, the equivalents of ICD-10 and ICPC-2 codes were different in number and percentage. It is ideal for individual health and research that the diagnosis codes in family medicine are the same as the codes in other secondary and tertiary care clinics. Since health requires holisticity, we recommend that both classifications be integrated and revised to be globally understandable and provide complementary coding in different clinical applications.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/7146424","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/7146424","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: After the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, briefly ICD (ICD-10), the World Health Organization (WHO) accepted the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2) as a reason for encounter classification of diagnoses in primary healthcare services. The study aimed to assess the degree of alignment between diagnoses encoded with the ICD-10 and, those coded using the ICPC-2.
Materials and Methods: We collected the diagnoses coded with the ICD-10 of 42,782 patients registered in the Uludağ University Family Health Center, Bursa, Turkey. The ICD-10 codes were converted to ICPC-2 codes with the program in the family medicine information registration system. Diagnoses in the database were analyzed. p values less than 0.05 were considered significant in the study. Analyses were made with the SPSS 25.0 package program.
Results: Of the 42,782 diagnoses with codes in ICD-10, a total of 218 diagnoses (0.51%) did not have an equivalent in ICPC-2. On the other hand, it was determined that a total of 463 diagnoses (1.08%) in ICD-10 had 2 or more codes in ICPC-2.
Conclusion: According to our results in family medicine practice, the equivalents of ICD-10 and ICPC-2 codes were different in number and percentage. It is ideal for individual health and research that the diagnosis codes in family medicine are the same as the codes in other secondary and tertiary care clinics. Since health requires holisticity, we recommend that both classifications be integrated and revised to be globally understandable and provide complementary coding in different clinical applications.
期刊介绍:
IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal.
IJCP publishes:
Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed]
Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
International scope
IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.