Comparison of the accuracy of inpatient morbidity coding with ICD-11 and ICD-10

Author:

Zarei Javad1ORCID,Golpira Reza2,Hashemi Nasim3,Azadmanjir Zahra4ORCID,Meidani Zahra5,Vahedi Akram6,Bakhshandeh Hooman2,Fakharian Esmaeil7,Sheikhtaheri Abbas8ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Iran

2. Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

3. Iranian Social Security Organization, Iran

4. Department of Health Information Management, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

5. Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

6. Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Iran

7. Trauma Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

8. Department of Health Information Technology, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Abstract

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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy,Leadership and Management

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3