评估 ICD-10 与 NIHSS 测量的卒中严重程度之间的一致性

Mohamed Taha, Mamoon Habib, Victor Lomachinsky, Peter Hadar, Joseph P Newhouse, Lee H. Schwamm, Deborah Blacker, Lidia M.V.R. Moura
{"title":"评估 ICD-10 与 NIHSS 测量的卒中严重程度之间的一致性","authors":"Mohamed Taha, Mamoon Habib, Victor Lomachinsky, Peter Hadar, Joseph P Newhouse, Lee H. Schwamm, Deborah Blacker, Lidia M.V.R. Moura","doi":"10.1101/2024.02.21.24303177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores have been used to evaluate Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) severity in clinical settings. Through the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Code (ICD-10), documentation of NIHSS scores has been made possible for administrative purposes and has since been increasingly adopted in insurance claims. Per CMS guidelines, the stroke ICD-10 diagnosis code must be documented by the treating physician, but ICD-10 NIHSS scores can be documented by any healthcare provider involved in the patient's care. Accuracy of the administratively collected NIHSS compared to expert clinical evaluation as documented in the Paul Coverdell registry is however still uncertain.\nMethods: Leveraging a linked dataset comprised of the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP) clinical registry and probabilistically matched individuals on Medicare Claims data, we sampled patients aged 65 and above admitted for AIS across nine states, from 2016 to 2019. We excluded those lacking documentation for either clinical or ICD-10 based NIHSS scores. We then examined score concordance from both databases and measured discordance as the absolute difference between the PCNASP and ICD-10-based NIHSS scores. Results: Among 66,837 matched patients, mean NIHSS scores for PCNASP and Medicare ICD-10 were 7.26 (95% CI: 7.20 - 7.32) and 7.40 (95% CI: 7.34 - 7.46), respectively. Concordance between the two scores was high as indicated by an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.93. Conclusion: The high concordance between clinical and ICD-10 NIHSS scores highlights the latter's potential as measure of stroke severity derived from structured claims data.","PeriodicalId":501386,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Concordance between ICD-10 and Stroke Severity as Measured by the NIHSS\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Taha, Mamoon Habib, Victor Lomachinsky, Peter Hadar, Joseph P Newhouse, Lee H. Schwamm, Deborah Blacker, Lidia M.V.R. Moura\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.02.21.24303177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores have been used to evaluate Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) severity in clinical settings. Through the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Code (ICD-10), documentation of NIHSS scores has been made possible for administrative purposes and has since been increasingly adopted in insurance claims. Per CMS guidelines, the stroke ICD-10 diagnosis code must be documented by the treating physician, but ICD-10 NIHSS scores can be documented by any healthcare provider involved in the patient's care. Accuracy of the administratively collected NIHSS compared to expert clinical evaluation as documented in the Paul Coverdell registry is however still uncertain.\\nMethods: Leveraging a linked dataset comprised of the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP) clinical registry and probabilistically matched individuals on Medicare Claims data, we sampled patients aged 65 and above admitted for AIS across nine states, from 2016 to 2019. We excluded those lacking documentation for either clinical or ICD-10 based NIHSS scores. We then examined score concordance from both databases and measured discordance as the absolute difference between the PCNASP and ICD-10-based NIHSS scores. Results: Among 66,837 matched patients, mean NIHSS scores for PCNASP and Medicare ICD-10 were 7.26 (95% CI: 7.20 - 7.32) and 7.40 (95% CI: 7.34 - 7.46), respectively. Concordance between the two scores was high as indicated by an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.93. Conclusion: The high concordance between clinical and ICD-10 NIHSS scores highlights the latter's potential as measure of stroke severity derived from structured claims data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Health Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.21.24303177\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.21.24303177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分一直用于评估临床环境中急性缺血性卒中(AIS)的严重程度。通过国际疾病分类第十次修订版代码(ICD-10),NIHSS 评分的记录可用于行政管理目的,并逐渐被保险理赔所采用。根据 CMS 指南,中风 ICD-10 诊断代码必须由主治医生记录,但 ICD-10 NIHSS 评分可由参与患者护理的任何医疗服务提供者记录。然而,行政收集的 NIHSS 与保罗-科弗戴尔登记册中记录的专家临床评估相比,其准确性仍不确定:利用由保罗-科沃德尔国家急性卒中计划(PCNASP)临床登记和医疗保险索赔数据中的概率匹配个体组成的链接数据集,我们抽样调查了九个州在 2016 年至 2019 年期间因 AIS 入院的 65 岁及以上患者。我们排除了那些缺乏临床或基于 ICD-10 的 NIHSS 评分文件的患者。然后,我们检查了两个数据库的评分一致性,并以 PCNASP 和基于 ICD-10 的 NIHSS 评分之间的绝对差值来衡量不一致性。结果:在 66,837 名匹配的患者中,PCNASP 和医保 ICD-10 的 NIHSS 平均得分分别为 7.26(95% CI:7.20 - 7.32)和 7.40(95% CI:7.34 - 7.46)。两种评分的类内相关系数为 0.93,表明两者之间的一致性很高。结论临床评分与 ICD-10 NIHSS 评分之间的高度一致性凸显了后者作为从结构化索赔数据中得出的卒中严重程度测量指标的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the Concordance between ICD-10 and Stroke Severity as Measured by the NIHSS
Background: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores have been used to evaluate Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) severity in clinical settings. Through the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Code (ICD-10), documentation of NIHSS scores has been made possible for administrative purposes and has since been increasingly adopted in insurance claims. Per CMS guidelines, the stroke ICD-10 diagnosis code must be documented by the treating physician, but ICD-10 NIHSS scores can be documented by any healthcare provider involved in the patient's care. Accuracy of the administratively collected NIHSS compared to expert clinical evaluation as documented in the Paul Coverdell registry is however still uncertain. Methods: Leveraging a linked dataset comprised of the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP) clinical registry and probabilistically matched individuals on Medicare Claims data, we sampled patients aged 65 and above admitted for AIS across nine states, from 2016 to 2019. We excluded those lacking documentation for either clinical or ICD-10 based NIHSS scores. We then examined score concordance from both databases and measured discordance as the absolute difference between the PCNASP and ICD-10-based NIHSS scores. Results: Among 66,837 matched patients, mean NIHSS scores for PCNASP and Medicare ICD-10 were 7.26 (95% CI: 7.20 - 7.32) and 7.40 (95% CI: 7.34 - 7.46), respectively. Concordance between the two scores was high as indicated by an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.93. Conclusion: The high concordance between clinical and ICD-10 NIHSS scores highlights the latter's potential as measure of stroke severity derived from structured claims data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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