Perceptions of Portuguese medical coders on the transition to ICD-10-CM/PCS: A national survey.

Filipa Santos Martins, Fernando Lopes, Júlio Souza, Alberto Freitas, João Vasco Santos
{"title":"Perceptions of Portuguese medical coders on the transition to ICD-10-CM/PCS: A national survey.","authors":"Filipa Santos Martins, Fernando Lopes, Júlio Souza, Alberto Freitas, João Vasco Santos","doi":"10.1177/18333583231180294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Portugal, trained physicians undertake the clinical coding process, which serves as the basis for hospital reimbursement systems. In 2017, the classification version used for coding of diagnoses and procedures for hospital morbidity changed from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification/Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the perceptions of medical coders on the transition of the clinical coding process from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS in terms of its impact on data quality, as well as the major differences, advantages, and problems they faced.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted an observational study using a web-based survey submitted to medical coders in Portugal. Survey questions were based on a literature review and from previous focus group studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 103 responses were obtained from medical coders with experience in the two versions of the classification system (i.e. ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS). Of these, 82 (79.6%) medical coders preferred the latest version and 76 (73.8%) considered that ICD-10-CM/PCS guaranteed higher quality of the coded data. However, more than half of the respondents (<i>N</i> = 61; 59.2%) believed that more time for the coding process for each episode was needed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Quality of clinical coded data is one of the major priorities that must be ensured. According to the medical coders, the use of ICD-10-CM/PCS appeared to achieve higher quality coded data, but also increased the effort.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>According to medical coders, the change off classification systems should improve the quality of coded data. Nevertheless, the extra time invested in this process might also pose a problem in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":" ","pages":"237-242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583231180294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In Portugal, trained physicians undertake the clinical coding process, which serves as the basis for hospital reimbursement systems. In 2017, the classification version used for coding of diagnoses and procedures for hospital morbidity changed from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification/Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS).

Objective: To assess the perceptions of medical coders on the transition of the clinical coding process from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS in terms of its impact on data quality, as well as the major differences, advantages, and problems they faced.

Method: We conducted an observational study using a web-based survey submitted to medical coders in Portugal. Survey questions were based on a literature review and from previous focus group studies.

Results: A total of 103 responses were obtained from medical coders with experience in the two versions of the classification system (i.e. ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS). Of these, 82 (79.6%) medical coders preferred the latest version and 76 (73.8%) considered that ICD-10-CM/PCS guaranteed higher quality of the coded data. However, more than half of the respondents (N = 61; 59.2%) believed that more time for the coding process for each episode was needed.

Conclusion: Quality of clinical coded data is one of the major priorities that must be ensured. According to the medical coders, the use of ICD-10-CM/PCS appeared to achieve higher quality coded data, but also increased the effort.

Implications: According to medical coders, the change off classification systems should improve the quality of coded data. Nevertheless, the extra time invested in this process might also pose a problem in the future.

葡萄牙医疗编码员对向 ICD-10-CM/PCS 过渡的看法:全国调查。
背景:在葡萄牙,经过培训的医生负责临床编码工作,这是医院报销系统的基础。2017 年,用于医院发病率诊断和程序编码的分类版本从《国际疾病分类,第九修订版,临床修正》(ICD-9-CM)改为《国际疾病分类,第十修订版,临床修正/程序编码系统》(ICD-10-CM/PCS):评估医疗编码员对临床编码流程从 ICD-9-CM 向 ICD-10-CM/PCS 过渡对数据质量的影响的看法,以及他们面临的主要差异、优势和问题:方法:我们向葡萄牙的医疗编码员提交了一份网络调查,进行了一项观察性研究。调查问题基于文献综述和以往的焦点小组研究:我们共收到 103 份来自医疗编码员的回复,他们对两个版本的分类系统(即 ICD-9-CM 和 ICD-10-CM/PCS)都有经验。其中,82 名(79.6%)医疗编码员倾向于使用最新版本,76 名(73.8%)认为 ICD-10-CM/PCS 能保证更高质量的编码数据。然而,超过半数的受访者(N = 61;59.2%)认为每个病程的编码过程需要更多时间:结论:临床编码数据的质量是必须确保的主要优先事项之一。医疗编码员认为,使用 ICD-10-CM/PCS 似乎能获得更高质量的编码数据,但也增加了工作量:医疗编码员认为,改变分类系统应能提高编码数据的质量。然而,在这一过程中投入的额外时间也可能在未来造成问题。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信