Comparison of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM Crosswalks Derived by Physician and Clinical Coder vs. Automated Methods.

Pub Date : 2021-03-15 eCollection 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,&nbsp;Xinyue Liu,&nbsp;Tarun Bhagnani,&nbsp;Matthew W Reynolds,&nbsp;Jenna Collins,&nbsp;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.

ICD-9-CM与ICD-10-CM人行横道的比较,由医生和临床编码器与自动方法得出。
目的:通过比较一般等效映射(GEMs)的ICD-9-CM和ICD-10-CM人行横道与医生/临床编码衍生的人行横道,评估自动化方法是否足以推导出ICD-10-CM算法。患者和方法:采用正向映射法推导出10种情况下的ICD-10-CM人行横道。作为敏感性分析,向前-向后映射(FBM)也进行了三种临床情况。医生/程序员独立开发了相同条件下的人行横道。利用Jaccard相似系数(JSC)对人行横道间的差异进行了总结。结果:医师/编码员人行横道通常比GEMs人行横道更具包容性。外周动脉疾病患者的人行横道差异最大(JSC: 0.06),轻度认知障碍患者(JSC: 1)和充血性心力衰竭患者(0.85)的人行横道差异最大。FBM为所有三种情况添加了ICD-10-CM代码,但没有一致地增加人行横道之间的相似性。结论:GEMs与医师/编码器算法很少完全一致;ICD-9-CM到ICD-10-CM人行横道的发展仍需要人工审查。
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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信