Exploring the differences in ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features across countries: an international survey.
Exploring the differences in ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features across countries: an international survey.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12913-021-06302-w
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-07
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Eastwood C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Otero Varela L;Doktorchik C;Wiebe N;Quan H;Eastwood C
《国际疾病分类》是全球报告疾病和健康状况的参考标准。各国在ICD使用和数据收集方面的差异可能会妨碍对发病率数据进行有意义的比较。因此，我们的目的是表征ICD和全球医院发病率数据收集特征。创建了一份在线问卷，对正在使用ICD的世界卫生组织（世卫组织）成员国进行民意调查。该调查包括关注ICD元特征和医院数据收集系统的问题，并通过SurveyMonkey使用有目的和滚雪球抽样进行分发。因此，来自世卫组织合作中心等专门从事该主题的组织的高级代表和其他国际疾病分类编码专家被邀请填写调查问卷，并将问卷转发给他们的同行。答案按国家进行整理，分析，并以描述性分析的叙述形式呈现。收集了47名参与者的答复，代表26个使用ICD的不同国家。结果表明，ICD元特征在诊断的最大允许编码字段、主要病情的定义和医院发病率数据库中数据字段的强制类型方面存在世界范围的差异。因此，最常报告的答案是“入院原因”作为主要条件定义（n = 14），有31个或更多可用的诊断字段（n = 12），以及“诊断”（n = 26）和“患者人口统计”（n = 25）作为强制性数据字段。数据收集系统在国家之间和国家内部都存在差异，从而表明在国际和国家一级都缺乏标准化。此外，一些国家报告了具体的数据收集特点，包括国际疾病分类编码的使用或滥用、编码的国家标准或缺乏标准以及医院使用的电子摘要系统。协调《国际疾病分类》编码标准/准则应成为加强卫生数据国际比较的共同目标。ICD数据收集的当前国际状况突出表明需要促进ICD和采用最新版本ICD-11。此外，它将鼓励进一步研究如何改进和规范ICD编码。在线版本包含补充材料，可在10.1186/s12913-021-06302-w获得。
The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the reference standard for reporting diseases and health conditions globally. Variations in ICD use and data collection across countries can hinder meaningful comparisons of morbidity data. Thus, we aimed to characterize ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features worldwide. An online questionnaire was created to poll the World Health Organization (WHO) member countries that were using ICD. The survey included questions focused on ICD meta-features and hospital data collection systems, and was distributed via SurveyMonkey using purposive and snowball sampling. Accordingly, senior representatives from organizations specialized in the topic, such as WHO Collaborating Centers, and other experts in ICD coding were invited to fill out the survey and forward the questionnaire to their peers. Answers were collated by country, analyzed, and presented in a narrative form with descriptive analysis. Responses from 47 participants were collected, representing 26 different countries using ICD. Results indicated worldwide disparities in the ICD meta-features regarding the maximum allowable coding fields for diagnosis, the definition of main condition, and the mandatory type of data fields in the hospital morbidity database. Accordingly, the most frequently reported answers were “reason for admission” as main condition definition (n = 14), having 31 or more diagnostic fields available (n = 12), and “Diagnoses” (n = 26) and “Patient demographics” (n = 25) for mandatory data fields. Discrepancies in data collection systems occurred between but also within countries, thereby revealing a lack of standardization both at the international and national level. Additionally, some countries reported specific data collection features, including the use or misuse of ICD coding, the national standards for coding or lack thereof, and the electronic abstracting systems utilized in hospitals. Harmonizing ICD coding standards/guidelines should be a common goal to enhance international comparisons of health data. The current international status of ICD data collection highlights the need for the promotion of ICD and the adoption of the newest version, ICD-11. Furthermore, it will encourage further research on how to improve and standardize ICD coding. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06302-w.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Quan, H.;Moskal, L.;Ghali, W. A.
通讯作者：
Ghali, W. A.
影响因子：
3
作者：
So, Lawrence;Beck, Cynthia A.;Quan, Hude
通讯作者：
Quan, Hude
影响因子：
3
作者：
Peng, Mingkai;Southern, Danielle A.;Quan, Hude
通讯作者：
Quan, Hude
影响因子：
3
作者：
Jette, Nathalie;Quan, Hude;Ghali, William A.
通讯作者：
Ghali, William A.
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Lucyk K;Tang K;Quan H
通讯作者：
Quan H