MP19-10 TRENDS IN TRANSGENDER DIAGNOSIS CODE USAGE FOR CALIFORNIA ED VISITS FROM 2012 TO 2019: DO CURRENT ICD CODES FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE HELP OR HINDER HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH?

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making II (MP19)1 Sep 2021MP19-10 TRENDS IN TRANSGENDER DIAGNOSIS CODE USAGE FOR CALIFORNIA ED VISITS FROM 2012 TO 2019: DO CURRENT ICD CODES FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE HELP OR HINDER HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH? Joshua Sterling, Arnav Srivastava, Kevin Chua, Sho Yoshitake, Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, and Maurice Garcia Joshua SterlingJoshua Sterling More articles by this author , Arnav SrivastavaArnav Srivastava More articles by this author , Kevin ChuaKevin Chua More articles by this author , Sho YoshitakeSho Yoshitake More articles by this author , Farnoosh Nik-AhdFarnoosh Nik-Ahd More articles by this author , and Maurice GarciaMaurice Garcia More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002004.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of people who identify as transgender (TG) in the U.S. is estimated to be between 0.6-0.7%. Knowledge of the health care needs, and how this underserved community utilizes health care services (such as emergency departments (ED)) lags in comparison to data for cis-gender individuals. A significant roadblock to epidemiologic and health services research is that many electronic medical record (EMR) systems still do not reliably capture which patients are transgender. The objectives of this study are: 1. To better understand which ICD diagnosis codes are most/least used by ED clinicians, in anticipation of future research; and 2. To measure how many TG patients utilized ED services in California from 2012-2019. METHODS: ED data from 2012-2019 from California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) database was abstracted and analyzed for encounters that had a primary or secondary diagnosis code associated with being TG, (Figure 1A). ICD- 9 codes were used from 2012 through Q3 2015 and ICD-10 codes were used for the remaining time interval. Excel and XLSTAT were for all data analysis. RESULTS: In 2012, 389 (0.004%) ED visits carried a TG code, compared to 1679 (0.013%) visits in 2019. This represents an increase of over 330% between 2012-2019, which was statistically significant, total number of ED visits (all patients) during this time increased 22%. Trends for ICD code usage, total encounters with a transgender associated code, and use of TG ICD codes as the primary diagnosis are shown in Figure 1B. CONCLUSIONS: While results show a significant increase in the use of TG-associated diagnosis codes over the observation period, the number of encounters identified is still far below what would be expected based on the estimated number of TG people in CA (0.76% of the CA population = 298K TG people). Accurate identification is important to assist care providers to: 1. Provide appropriate care, 2. Protect TG patients as they pass through the healthcare system, and 3. Facilitate epidemiologic research to ensure TG people have the health resources they need. Current ICD codes are insufficient to achieve these goals (they are redundant, confusing, and inexact). New ICD codes are warranted. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e331-e331 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Joshua Sterling More articles by this author Arnav Srivastava More articles by this author Kevin Chua More articles by this author Sho Yoshitake More articles by this author Farnoosh Nik-Ahd More articles by this author Maurice Garcia More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...