ICD-data collection features: an international survey

L. Varela, C. Doktorchik, Natalie Wiebe, C. Eastwood, H. Quan
{"title":"ICD-data collection features: an international survey","authors":"L. Varela, C. Doktorchik, Natalie Wiebe, C. Eastwood, H. Quan","doi":"10.29173/aar83","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:  The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is globally used for coding morbidity and mortality statistics, however, its use, as well as the data collection features vary greatly across countries. \nObjective: To characterize hospital ICD-coded data collection worldwide. \nMethods: After an in-depth grey and academic literature review, an online survey was created to poll the 194 World Health Organization (WHO) member countries. Questions focused on hospital data collection systems and ICD-coded data features. The survey was distributed, using different methods, to potential participants that met the specific criteria, as well as organizations specialized in the topic, such as WHO Collaborating Centers (WHO-CC) or International Federation of Health Information Management Association (IFHIMA), to be forwarded to their representatives. Answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. \nResults: Data from 48 respondents from 26 different countries has been collected. Results reveal worldwide use of ICD, with variations in the maximum allowable coding fields for diagnoses and interventions. For instance, in some countries there is an unlimited number of coding fields (Netherlands, Thailand and Iran), as opposed to others with only 1-6 available (Guatemala or Mauritius). Disparities also exist in the definition of a main condition, as 60% of the countries use “reason for admission” and 40% utilize “resource use”. Additionally, the mandatory type of data fields in the hospital morbidity database (e.g. patient demographics, admission type, discharge disposition, diagnoses, …) differ among countries, with diagnosis timing and physician information being the least frequently required. \nConclusion: These survey data will establish the current state of ICD use internationally, which will ultimately be valuable to the WHO for the promotion of ICD and the rollout of ICD-11. Additionally, it will improve international comparisons of health data, and encourage further research on how to improve ICD coding.","PeriodicalId":239812,"journal":{"name":"Alberta Academic Review","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alberta Academic Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/aar83","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is globally used for coding morbidity and mortality statistics, however, its use, as well as the data collection features vary greatly across countries. Objective: To characterize hospital ICD-coded data collection worldwide. Methods: After an in-depth grey and academic literature review, an online survey was created to poll the 194 World Health Organization (WHO) member countries. Questions focused on hospital data collection systems and ICD-coded data features. The survey was distributed, using different methods, to potential participants that met the specific criteria, as well as organizations specialized in the topic, such as WHO Collaborating Centers (WHO-CC) or International Federation of Health Information Management Association (IFHIMA), to be forwarded to their representatives. Answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Data from 48 respondents from 26 different countries has been collected. Results reveal worldwide use of ICD, with variations in the maximum allowable coding fields for diagnoses and interventions. For instance, in some countries there is an unlimited number of coding fields (Netherlands, Thailand and Iran), as opposed to others with only 1-6 available (Guatemala or Mauritius). Disparities also exist in the definition of a main condition, as 60% of the countries use “reason for admission” and 40% utilize “resource use”. Additionally, the mandatory type of data fields in the hospital morbidity database (e.g. patient demographics, admission type, discharge disposition, diagnoses, …) differ among countries, with diagnosis timing and physician information being the least frequently required. Conclusion: These survey data will establish the current state of ICD use internationally, which will ultimately be valuable to the WHO for the promotion of ICD and the rollout of ICD-11. Additionally, it will improve international comparisons of health data, and encourage further research on how to improve ICD coding.
icd数据收集特点:国际调查
背景:国际疾病分类(ICD)在全球范围内用于对发病率和死亡率统计数据进行编码,然而,其使用情况以及数据收集特点在各国之间差异很大。目的:探讨全球医院icd编码数据收集的特点。方法:在深入的灰色文献和学术文献回顾之后,创建了一项在线调查,对194个世界卫生组织(WHO)成员国进行了民意调查。问题集中在医院数据收集系统和icd编码的数据特征。使用不同的方法将调查分发给符合特定标准的潜在参与者以及专门从事该专题的组织,例如世卫组织合作中心或国际卫生信息管理协会联合会,并将其转交给其代表。使用描述性统计对答案进行分析。结果:收集了来自26个不同国家的48名受访者的数据。结果揭示了ICD在世界范围内的使用,在诊断和干预的最大允许编码域方面存在差异。例如,在一些国家有无限数量的编码字段(荷兰、泰国和伊朗),而其他国家只有1-6个可用(危地马拉或毛里求斯)。在主要条件的定义上也存在差异,60%的国家使用“入学理由”,40%的国家使用“资源利用”。此外,医院发病率数据库中的强制性数据字段类型(例如,患者人口统计、入院类型、出院处置、诊断等)因国家而异,诊断时间和医生信息是最不常见的要求。结论:这些调查数据将确定国际上ICD使用的现状,最终将对世卫组织促进ICD和推出ICD-11有价值。此外,它将改进卫生数据的国际比较,并鼓励进一步研究如何改进国际疾病分类编码。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信