ICD-11和ICD-10对住院病人发病率编码准确性的比较。

Javad Zarei, Reza Golpira, Nasim Hashemi, Zahra Azadmanjir, Zahra Meidani, Akram Vahedi, Hooman Bakhshandeh, Esmaeil Fakharian, Abbas Sheikhtaheri
{"title":"ICD-11和ICD-10对住院病人发病率编码准确性的比较。","authors":"Javad Zarei,&nbsp;Reza Golpira,&nbsp;Nasim Hashemi,&nbsp;Zahra Azadmanjir,&nbsp;Zahra Meidani,&nbsp;Akram Vahedi,&nbsp;Hooman Bakhshandeh,&nbsp;Esmaeil Fakharian,&nbsp;Abbas Sheikhtaheri","doi":"10.1177/18333583231185355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>One of the challenges when transitioning from International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) to International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) is to ensure clinical coding accuracy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the accuracy of clinical coding with ICD-11 in comparison with ICD-10 and identify causes of coding errors in real clinical coding environments.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study was conducted prospectively in two general hospitals. Medical records of discharged inpatients were coded by hospital clinical coders with both ICD-11 and ICD-10 on different days. These medical records were recoded by five mentors. Codes assigned by mentors were used as the gold standard for the evaluation of accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The accuracy of ICD-10 and ICD-11 coding for 1578 and 2168 codes was evaluated. Coding accuracy was 89.1% and 74.2% for ICD-10 and ICD-11. In ICD-11, the lowest accuracy was observed in chapters 22 (injuries), 10 (ear) and 11 (circulatory) (51.1%, 53.8% and 62.7%, respectively). In both ICD-10 and ICD-11, the most important cause of the coding errors was clinical coders' mistakes (79.5% and 81.8% for ICD-10 and ICD-11, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accuracy of clinical coding with ICD-11 was lower relative to ICD-10. Hence, it is essential to carry out initial preparations, particularly the training of clinical coders based on their needs, as well as the necessary interventions to enhance the documentation of medical records according to ICD-11 before or simultaneous with the country-wide implementation.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Clinical coders need complete training, especially in using extension codes and post-coordination coding. Local ICD-11 guidelines based on the needs of local users and reporting policies should be developed. Furthermore, documentation guidelines based on ICD-11 requirements should be developed.</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":" ","pages":"18333583231185355"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the accuracy of inpatient morbidity coding with ICD-11 and ICD-10.\",\"authors\":\"Javad Zarei,&nbsp;Reza Golpira,&nbsp;Nasim Hashemi,&nbsp;Zahra Azadmanjir,&nbsp;Zahra Meidani,&nbsp;Akram Vahedi,&nbsp;Hooman Bakhshandeh,&nbsp;Esmaeil Fakharian,&nbsp;Abbas Sheikhtaheri\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/18333583231185355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>One of the challenges when transitioning from International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) to International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) is to ensure clinical coding accuracy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the accuracy of clinical coding with ICD-11 in comparison with ICD-10 and identify causes of coding errors in real clinical coding environments.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study was conducted prospectively in two general hospitals. Medical records of discharged inpatients were coded by hospital clinical coders with both ICD-11 and ICD-10 on different days. These medical records were recoded by five mentors. Codes assigned by mentors were used as the gold standard for the evaluation of accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The accuracy of ICD-10 and ICD-11 coding for 1578 and 2168 codes was evaluated. Coding accuracy was 89.1% and 74.2% for ICD-10 and ICD-11. In ICD-11, the lowest accuracy was observed in chapters 22 (injuries), 10 (ear) and 11 (circulatory) (51.1%, 53.8% and 62.7%, respectively). In both ICD-10 and ICD-11, the most important cause of the coding errors was clinical coders' mistakes (79.5% and 81.8% for ICD-10 and ICD-11, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accuracy of clinical coding with ICD-11 was lower relative to ICD-10. Hence, it is essential to carry out initial preparations, particularly the training of clinical coders based on their needs, as well as the necessary interventions to enhance the documentation of medical records according to ICD-11 before or simultaneous with the country-wide implementation.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Clinical coders need complete training, especially in using extension codes and post-coordination coding. Local ICD-11 guidelines based on the needs of local users and reporting policies should be developed. Furthermore, documentation guidelines based on ICD-11 requirements should be developed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"18333583231185355\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583231185355\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583231185355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:从《国际疾病与相关健康问题统计分类第十次修订版》(ICD-10)过渡到《国际疾病分类第十一次修订版》(ICD-11)的挑战之一是确保临床编码的准确性。目的:比较ICD-11与ICD-10临床编码的准确性,找出临床真实编码环境中编码错误的原因。方法:在两所综合医院进行前瞻性研究。出院住院患者病历采用医院临床编码员分别使用ICD-11和ICD-10在不同日期进行编码。这些医疗记录由五位导师重新编码。导师分配的代码被用作准确性评估的金标准。结果:分别对1578和2168个编码进行了ICD-10和ICD-11编码的准确性评价。ICD-10和ICD-11的编码准确率分别为89.1%和74.2%。在ICD-11中,第22章(损伤)、第10章(耳)和第11章(循环)的准确率最低(分别为51.1%、53.8%和62.7%)。在ICD-10和ICD-11中,编码错误的最主要原因是临床编码员的错误(ICD-10和ICD-11分别为79.5%和81.8%)。结论:与ICD-10相比,ICD-11对临床编码的准确性较低。因此,必须进行初步准备工作,特别是根据临床编码员的需要对他们进行培训,并在全国范围内实施之前或同时采取必要的干预措施,根据《国际疾病分类-11》加强病历的记录工作。含义:临床编码人员需要完整的培训,特别是在使用扩展编码和后协调编码。应根据当地用户的需要和报告政策制定《国际疾病分类-11》的当地指南。此外,应根据ICD-11的要求制订文件准则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of the accuracy of inpatient morbidity coding with ICD-11 and ICD-10.

Background: One of the challenges when transitioning from International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) to International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) is to ensure clinical coding accuracy.

Objective: To determine the accuracy of clinical coding with ICD-11 in comparison with ICD-10 and identify causes of coding errors in real clinical coding environments.

Method: The study was conducted prospectively in two general hospitals. Medical records of discharged inpatients were coded by hospital clinical coders with both ICD-11 and ICD-10 on different days. These medical records were recoded by five mentors. Codes assigned by mentors were used as the gold standard for the evaluation of accuracy.

Results: The accuracy of ICD-10 and ICD-11 coding for 1578 and 2168 codes was evaluated. Coding accuracy was 89.1% and 74.2% for ICD-10 and ICD-11. In ICD-11, the lowest accuracy was observed in chapters 22 (injuries), 10 (ear) and 11 (circulatory) (51.1%, 53.8% and 62.7%, respectively). In both ICD-10 and ICD-11, the most important cause of the coding errors was clinical coders' mistakes (79.5% and 81.8% for ICD-10 and ICD-11, respectively).

Conclusion: Accuracy of clinical coding with ICD-11 was lower relative to ICD-10. Hence, it is essential to carry out initial preparations, particularly the training of clinical coders based on their needs, as well as the necessary interventions to enhance the documentation of medical records according to ICD-11 before or simultaneous with the country-wide implementation.

Implications: Clinical coders need complete training, especially in using extension codes and post-coordination coding. Local ICD-11 guidelines based on the needs of local users and reporting policies should be developed. Furthermore, documentation guidelines based on ICD-11 requirements should be developed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health information management students' work-integrated learning (professional practice placements): Where do they go and what do they do? Physician-clinical coder collaboration effectively improves coding accuracy: A single-centre prospective study in China. Physicians' acceptance and adoption of mobile health applications during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. The health information management workforce: Looking to the future. Demystifying environmental health-related diseases: Using ICD codes to facilitate environmental health clinical referrals.
×
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