Accuracy of the modified Global Burden of Disease International Classification of Diseases coding methods for identifying sepsis: a prospective multicentre cohort study
Ashwani Kumar, Bala Venkatesh, Simon Finfer, Anthony Delaney, Kelly Thompson, Paul M. Middleton, Anders Aneman, Kavitha Shetty, Deepak Bhonagiri, Manoj Saxena, Frank M. P. van Haren, Celia Bradford, Graham Reece, Simon Rodda, Candice Mackellar, Francess Bass, Lewis Tsang, Sandra Li, Raymond Kwok, Alexander Buckley, Angela Zou, Swathi Sridharan, David Hu, Mark Iskandar, Sarah Frost, Tori Headington, Giuliana Connor, Anthony Klironomos, Sana Shan, Yang Li, Belinda Anderson, Rebecca Sidoli, Deborah Inskip, Matthew Lam, Garnette Fuller, Christopher Yu, Bridget Sigurdson, Richard McNulty, Maeda Sadeghpour, Laurent Billot, Naomi Hammond
{"title":"Accuracy of the modified Global Burden of Disease International Classification of Diseases coding methods for identifying sepsis: a prospective multicentre cohort study","authors":"Ashwani Kumar, Bala Venkatesh, Simon Finfer, Anthony Delaney, Kelly Thompson, Paul M. Middleton, Anders Aneman, Kavitha Shetty, Deepak Bhonagiri, Manoj Saxena, Frank M. P. van Haren, Celia Bradford, Graham Reece, Simon Rodda, Candice Mackellar, Francess Bass, Lewis Tsang, Sandra Li, Raymond Kwok, Alexander Buckley, Angela Zou, Swathi Sridharan, David Hu, Mark Iskandar, Sarah Frost, Tori Headington, Giuliana Connor, Anthony Klironomos, Sana Shan, Yang Li, Belinda Anderson, Rebecca Sidoli, Deborah Inskip, Matthew Lam, Garnette Fuller, Christopher Yu, Bridget Sigurdson, Richard McNulty, Maeda Sadeghpour, Laurent Billot, Naomi Hammond","doi":"10.1186/s13054-025-05448-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study assessed the accuracy of three International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes methods derived from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) sepsis study (modified GBD method) in identifying sepsis, compared to the Angus method. Sources of errors in these methods were also reported. Prospective multicentre, observational, study. Emergency Department patients aged ≥ 16 years with high sepsis risk from nine hospitals in NSW, Australia were screened for clinical sepsis using Sepsis 3 criteria and coded as having sepsis or not using the modified GBD and Angus methods. The three modified GBD methods were: Explicit—sepsis-specific ICD code recorded; Implicit—sepsis-specific code or infection as primary ICD code plus organ dysfunction code; Implicit plus—as for Implicit but infection as primary or secondary ICD code. Agreement between clinical sepsis and ICD coding methods was assessed using Cronbach alpha (α). For false positive cases (ICD-coded sepsis but not clinically diagnosed), the ICD codes leading to those errors were documented. For false negatives (clinically diagnosed sepsis but ICD-coded), uncoded sources of infection and organ dysfunction were documented. Of 6869 screened patients, 450 (median age 72.4 years, 48.9% females) met inclusion criteria. Clinical sepsis was diagnosed in 215/450 (47.8%). The explicit, implicit, implicit plus and Angus methods identified sepsis in 108/450 (24.0%), 175/450 (38.9%), 222/450 (49.3%) and 170/450 (37.8%), respectively. Sensitivity was 41.4%, 58.1%, 67.4% and 55.8%, and specificity 91.9%, 78.7%, 67.2% and 79.1%, respectively. Agreement between clinical sepsis and all ICD coding methods was low (α = 0.52–0.56). False positives were 19, 50, and 77, while false negatives were 126, 90, and 70 for the explicit, implicit, and implicit plus methods, respectively. For false positive cases, unspecified urinary tract infection, hypotension and acute kidney failure were commonly assigned infection and organ dysfunction codes. About half (44.3%-55.6%) of the false negative cases didn’t have a pathogen documented. The modified GBD method demonstrated low accuracy in identifying sepsis; with the implicit plus method being the most accurate. Errors in identifying sepsis using ICD codes arise mostly from coding for unspecified urinary infections and associated organ dysfunction. The study was registered at the ANZCTR (ACTRN12621000333819) on 24 March 2021.","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05448-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study assessed the accuracy of three International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes methods derived from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) sepsis study (modified GBD method) in identifying sepsis, compared to the Angus method. Sources of errors in these methods were also reported. Prospective multicentre, observational, study. Emergency Department patients aged ≥ 16 years with high sepsis risk from nine hospitals in NSW, Australia were screened for clinical sepsis using Sepsis 3 criteria and coded as having sepsis or not using the modified GBD and Angus methods. The three modified GBD methods were: Explicit—sepsis-specific ICD code recorded; Implicit—sepsis-specific code or infection as primary ICD code plus organ dysfunction code; Implicit plus—as for Implicit but infection as primary or secondary ICD code. Agreement between clinical sepsis and ICD coding methods was assessed using Cronbach alpha (α). For false positive cases (ICD-coded sepsis but not clinically diagnosed), the ICD codes leading to those errors were documented. For false negatives (clinically diagnosed sepsis but ICD-coded), uncoded sources of infection and organ dysfunction were documented. Of 6869 screened patients, 450 (median age 72.4 years, 48.9% females) met inclusion criteria. Clinical sepsis was diagnosed in 215/450 (47.8%). The explicit, implicit, implicit plus and Angus methods identified sepsis in 108/450 (24.0%), 175/450 (38.9%), 222/450 (49.3%) and 170/450 (37.8%), respectively. Sensitivity was 41.4%, 58.1%, 67.4% and 55.8%, and specificity 91.9%, 78.7%, 67.2% and 79.1%, respectively. Agreement between clinical sepsis and all ICD coding methods was low (α = 0.52–0.56). False positives were 19, 50, and 77, while false negatives were 126, 90, and 70 for the explicit, implicit, and implicit plus methods, respectively. For false positive cases, unspecified urinary tract infection, hypotension and acute kidney failure were commonly assigned infection and organ dysfunction codes. About half (44.3%-55.6%) of the false negative cases didn’t have a pathogen documented. The modified GBD method demonstrated low accuracy in identifying sepsis; with the implicit plus method being the most accurate. Errors in identifying sepsis using ICD codes arise mostly from coding for unspecified urinary infections and associated organ dysfunction. The study was registered at the ANZCTR (ACTRN12621000333819) on 24 March 2021.
期刊介绍:
Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.