Comparison of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM Crosswalks Derived by Physician and Clinical Coder vs. Automated Methods.
Pub Date : 2021-03-15eCollection Date: 2021-01-01
Jason C Simeone, Xinyue Liu, Tarun Bhagnani, Matthew W Reynolds, Jenna Collins, Edward A Bortnichak
{"title":"Comparison of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM Crosswalks Derived by Physician and Clinical Coder vs. Automated Methods.","authors":"Jason C Simeone, Xinyue Liu, Tarun Bhagnani, Matthew W Reynolds, Jenna Collins, Edward A Bortnichak","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether automated methods are sufficient for deriving ICD-10-CM algorithms by comparing ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalks from general equivalence mappings (GEMs) with physician/clinical coder-derived crosswalks.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Forward mapping was used to derive ICD-10-CM crosswalks for 10 conditions. As a sensitivity analysis, forward-backward mapping (FBM) was also conducted for three clinical conditions. The physician/coder independently developed crosswalks for the same conditions. Differences between the crosswalks were summarized using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (JSC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Physician/coder crosswalks were typically far more inclusive than GEMs crosswalks. Crosswalks for peripheral artery disease were most dissimilar (JSC: 0.06), while crosswalks for mild cognitive impairment (JSC: 1) and congestive heart failure (0.85) were most similar. FBM added ICD-10-CM codes for all three conditions but did not consistently increase similarity between crosswalks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The GEMs and physician/coder algorithms rarely aligned fully; human review is still required for ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalk development.</p>","PeriodicalId":74422,"journal":{"name":"","volume":"18 Spring","pages":"1e"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8120674/pdf/phim0018-0001e.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate whether automated methods are sufficient for deriving ICD-10-CM algorithms by comparing ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalks from general equivalence mappings (GEMs) with physician/clinical coder-derived crosswalks.
Patients and methods: Forward mapping was used to derive ICD-10-CM crosswalks for 10 conditions. As a sensitivity analysis, forward-backward mapping (FBM) was also conducted for three clinical conditions. The physician/coder independently developed crosswalks for the same conditions. Differences between the crosswalks were summarized using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (JSC).
Results: Physician/coder crosswalks were typically far more inclusive than GEMs crosswalks. Crosswalks for peripheral artery disease were most dissimilar (JSC: 0.06), while crosswalks for mild cognitive impairment (JSC: 1) and congestive heart failure (0.85) were most similar. FBM added ICD-10-CM codes for all three conditions but did not consistently increase similarity between crosswalks.
Conclusion: The GEMs and physician/coder algorithms rarely aligned fully; human review is still required for ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalk development.