-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: : The WHO International Classification of Diseases is used in many national applications to plan, manage and fund through case mix health care systems and allows international comparisons of the performance of these systems. There is no such measuring tool for health interventions or procedures. To fulfil this requirement the WHO-FIC Network recommended in 2006 to develop an International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI). This initiative is aimed to harmonise the existing national classifications and to provide a basic system for the countries which have not developed their own classification systems. It is based on the CEN/ISO ontology framework standard named Categorial Structure defined from a non formal bottom up ontology approach. The process of populating the framework is ongoing to start from a common model structure encompassing the ICD 9CM Volume 3 granularity.
Studies in health technology and informatics 01/2011; 169:749-53.
-
Nathalie Jetté,
Hude Quan,
Brenda Hemmelgarn,
Saskia Drosler,
Christina Maass, Lori Moskal,
Wansa Paoin,
Vijaya Sundararajan,
Song Gao,
Robert Jakob,
Bedihran Üstün,
William A. Ghali,
for the IMECCHI Investigators
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: The United States is about to make a major nationwide transition from ICD-9-CM coding of hospital discharges to ICD-10-CM, a country-specific modification of the World Health Organization's ICD-10. As this transition occurs, the WHO is already in the midst of developing ICD-11. Given this context, we undertook this review to discuss: (1) the history of the International Classification of Diseases (a core information “building block” for health systems everywhere) from its introduction to the current era of ICD-11 development; (2) differences across country-specific ICD-10 clinical modifications and the challenges that these differences pose to the international comparability of morbidity data; (3) potential strategic approaches to achieving better international ICD-11 comparability.
Literature Review and Discussion: A literature review and stakeholder consultation was carried out. The various ICD-10 clinical modifications (ICD-10-AM [Australia], ICD-10-CA [Canada], ICD-10-GM [Germany], ICD-10-TM [Thailand], ICD-10-CM [United States]) were compared. These ICD-10 modifications differ in their number of codes, chapters, and subcategories. Specific conditions are present in some but not all of the modifications. ICD-11, with a similar structure to ICD-10, will function in an electronic health records environment and also provide disease descriptive characteristics (eg, causal properties, functional impact, and treatment).
Conclusion: The threat to the comparability of international clinical morbidity is growing with the development of many country-specific ICD-10 versions. One solution to this threat is to develop a meta-database including all country-specific modifications to ensure more efficient use of people and resources, decrease omissions and errors but most importantly provide a platform for future ICD updates.
Medical Care 11/2010; 48(12):1105-1110. · 3.41 Impact Factor
-
Nathalie Jetté,
Hude Quan,
Brenda Hemmelgarn,
Saskia Drosler,
Christina Maass, Lori Moskal,
Wansa Paoin,
Vijaya Sundararajan,
Song Gao,
Robert Jakob,
Bedihran Ustün,
William A Ghali
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The United States is about to make a major nationwide transition from ICD-9-CM coding of hospital discharges to ICD-10-CM, a country-specific modification of the World Health Organization's ICD-10. As this transition occurs, the WHO is already in the midst of developing ICD-11. Given this context, we undertook this review to discuss: (1) the history of the International Classification of Diseases (a core information "building block" for health systems everywhere) from its introduction to the current era of ICD-11 development; (2) differences across country-specific ICD-10 clinical modifications and the challenges that these differences pose to the international comparability of morbidity data; (3) potential strategic approaches to achieving better international ICD-11 comparability. LITERATURE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: A literature review and stakeholder consultation was carried out. The various ICD-10 clinical modifications (ICD-10-AM [Australia], ICD-10-CA [Canada], ICD-10-GM [Germany], ICD-10-TM [Thailand], ICD-10-CM [United States]) were compared. These ICD-10 modifications differ in their number of codes, chapters, and subcategories. Specific conditions are present in some but not all of the modifications. ICD-11, with a similar structure to ICD-10, will function in an electronic health records environment and also provide disease descriptive characteristics (eg, causal properties, functional impact, and treatment). CONCLUSION: The threat to the comparability of international clinical morbidity is growing with the development of many country-specific ICD-10 versions. One solution to this threat is to develop a meta-database including all country-specific modifications to ensure more efficient use of people and resources, decrease omissions and errors but most importantly provide a platform for future ICD updates.
Medical care 10/2010; 48(12):1105-10. · 3.24 Impact Factor
-
Hude Quan,
Saskia Drösler,
Vijaya Sundararajan,
Eugene Wen,
Bernard Burnand,
Chantal Marie Couris,
Patricia Halfon,
Jean-Marie Januel,
Edward Kelley,
Niek Klazinga, [......], Lori Moskal,
Eric Pradat,
Patrick S Romano,
Jennie Shepheard,
Lawrence So,
Lalitha Sundaresan,
Linda Tournay-Lewis,
Béatrice Trombert-Paviot,
Greg Webster,
William A Ghali
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) developed Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) for use with ICD-9-CM data. Many countries have adopted ICD-10 for coding hospital diagnoses. We conducted this study to develop an internationally harmonized ICD-10 coding algorithm for the AHRQ PSIs. Methods: The AHRQ PSI Version 2.1 has been translated into ICD-10-AM (Australian Modification), and PSI Version 3.0a has been independently translated into ICD-10-GM (German Modification). We converted these two country-specific coding algorithms into ICD-10-WHO (World Health Organization version) and combined them to form one master list. Members of an international expert panel—including physicians, professional medical coders, disease classification specialists, health services researchers, epidemiologists, and users of the PSI—independently evaluated this master list and rated each code as either “include,” “exclude,” or “uncertain,” following the AHRQ PSI definitions. After summarizing the independent rating results, we held a face-to-face meeting to discuss codes for which there was no unanimous consensus and newly proposed codes. A modified Delphi method was employed to generate a final ICD-10 WHO coding list. Results: Of 20 PSIs, 15 that were based mainly on diagnosis codes were selected for translation. At the meeting, panelists discussed 794 codes for which consensus had not been achieved and 2,541 additional codes that were proposed by individual panelists for consideration prior to the meeting. Three documents were generated: a PSI ICD-10-WHO version-coding list, a list of issues for consideration on certain AHRQ PSIs and ICD-9-CM codes, and a recommendation to WHO to improve specification of some disease classifications. Conclusion: An ICD-10-WHO PSI coding list has been developed and structured in a manner similar to the AHRQ manual. Although face validity of the list has been ensured through a rigorous expert panel assessment, its true validity and applicability should be assessed internationally.
01/2008;
