Department of Community Health Sciences and Centre for Health and Policy Studies, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary, AB T2N4N1, Canada.
The goal of this study was to assess the validity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th Version (ICD-10) administrative hospital discharge data and to determine whether there were improvements in the validity of coding for clinical conditions compared with ICD-9 Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) data.
We reviewed 4,008 randomly selected charts for patients admitted from January 1 to June 30, 2003 at four teaching hospitals in Alberta, Canada to determine the presence or absence of 32 clinical conditions and to assess the agreement between ICD-10 data and chart data. We then re-coded the same charts using ICD-9-CM and determined the agreement between the ICD-9-CM data and chart data for recording those same conditions. The accuracy of ICD-10 data relative to chart data was compared with the accuracy of ICD-9-CM data relative to chart data.
Sensitivity values ranged from 9.3 to 83.1 percent for ICD-9-CM and from 12.7 to 80.8 percent for ICD-10 data. Positive predictive values ranged from 23.1 to 100 percent for ICD-9-CM and from 32.0 to 100 percent for ICD-10 data. Specificity and negative predictive values were consistently high for both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 databases. Of the 32 conditions assessed, ICD-10 data had significantly higher sensitivity for one condition and lower sensitivity for seven conditions relative to ICD-9-CM data. The two databases had similar sensitivity values for the remaining 24 conditions.
The validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions was generally similar though validity differed between coding versions for some conditions. The implementation of ICD-10 coding has not significantly improved the quality of administrative data relative to ICD-9-CM. Future assessments like this one are needed because the validity of ICD-10 data may get better as coders gain experience with the new coding system.
Notes
Cites: Med Care. 2006 Nov;44(11):1011-917063133
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 1993 Oct 15;119(8):844-508018127
Cites: Med Care. 1994 Jan;32(1):81-908277803
Cites: Med Care. 1997 Jun;35(6):589-6029191704
Cites: J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-833558716
Cites: Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74843571
Cites: Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4):355-6015076812
Cites: Stat Med. 2003 May 15;22(9):1551-7012704615
Cites: Med Care. 2002 Oct;40(10):856-6712395020
Cites: Med Care. 2002 Aug;40(8):675-8512187181
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 1988 Nov 1;109(9):745-513142326
Cites: JAMA. 1990 Sep 19;264(11):1426-312391739
Cites: Med Care. 2000 Aug;38(8):796-80610929992
Cites: J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Mar;194(3):257-6611893128
Cites: JAMA. 1992 Aug 19;268(7):896-91640619
Cites: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Apr;194(4):992-100116580288
Cites: Med Care. 2005 Nov;43(11):1130-916224307
Cites: Health Serv Res. 2005 Oct;40(5 Pt 2):1620-3916178999
Cites: Stroke. 2005 Aug;36(8):1776-8116020772
Cites: J Crit Care. 2005 Mar;20(1):12-916015512
Cites: Med Care. 2005 Feb;43(2):182-815655432
Cites: Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Dec;82(12):904-1315654404