Abstract

IntroductionCountries use varying coding standards, which impact international coded data comparability. The ‘main condition’ (MC) field is coded within the Discharge Database as “reason for admission” or “largest resource use”.ObjectiveWe offer a preliminary analysis on the frequency of and contributing factors to MC definition agreements within an inpatient Canadian dataset.MethodsSix professional coders performed a chart review between August 2016 and June 2017 on 3,000 randomly selected inpatient charts from three acute care hospitals in Calgary, Alberta. Coders classified the MC as “reason for admission”, “largest resource use” or “both”. Patients were admitted between 1st January and 30th June 2015 and met the inclusion criteria if they were ≥18 years, had an Alberta personal health care number, and had an inpatient visit for any service outside of obstetrics. Agreement between the two MC definitions was stratified by length of stay (LOS), emergency department admission, hospital of origin, discharge location, age, sex, procedures, and comorbidities. Chi-square analysis and frequency of inconsistencies were reported.ResultsOnly 34 (1.51%) of the 2,250 patient charts had disagreeing MC definitions. Age, emergency visit on admit, LOS, hospital, and discharge location were associated with MC agreement. Chronic conditions were seen more often in MC definition agreements, and acute conditions seen within those disagreeing.ConclusionThere was a small proportion of cases in which the condition bringing the patient to hospital was not also the condition occupying the largest resources. Within disagreements, further research using a larger sample size is needed to explore the presence of MC in a secondary/tertiary condition, the association between patient complexity and disagreeing MC definitions, and the nature of the conditions seen in the inconsistent MC definitions.

Highlights

  • Countries use varying coding standards, which impact international coded data comparability

  • Further research using a larger sample size is needed to explore the presence of MC in a secondary/tertiary condition, the association between patient complexity and disagreeing MC definitions, and the nature of the conditions seen in the inconsistent MC definitions

  • All 6 clinical coders were trained for this study by a University of Calgary research team, Canadian Institue for Health Information (CIHI) and World Health Organization (WHO) experts [11, 12]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Countries use varying coding standards, which impact international coded data comparability. Researchers use coded data to collect essential data on healthcare systems worldwide, including data on resource use, disease prevalence, and quality of care. Having an international coding system allows for the comparison of mortality and morbidity data across countries, which can inform research initiatives, medical advancements, and resource allocation decisions. Countries customize ICD versions to include condition descriptions that best suit their country. They will include more or less layers of detail according to their country’s disease prevalence, coding needs and countryspecific secondary use of ICD-coded data. Countries are encouraged to use the most recent version of ICD, in order to maintain international coding standards and re-establish data comparisons

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.