A comparison of two structured taxonomic strategies in capturing adverse events in U.S. hospitals

Documentation of Drug-Related Problems with ICD-11: Application of the New WHO Code-Set to Clinical Routine Data

Drug-related problems (DRPs), i.e., adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors (MEs), constitute a serious threat to the patient's safety. DRPs are often insufficiently captured by clinical routine documentation, and thus, they frequently remain unaddressed. The aim of this study was to assess the coverage and usability of the new 11th revision of the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) to document DRPs. We refined the 'Quality and Safety Algorithm' from the ICD-11 Reference Guide and used it for DRP reporting to code 100 different anonymized DRPs (50 ADRs and 50 MEs) in a German hospital. The ICD-11 three-part model consisting of harm, cause, and mode was used whenever they were applicable. Of 50 ADRs, 15 (30.0%), such as drug-induced osteoporosis, were fully classifiable and codable by the ICD-11, whereas 35 (70.0%), such as drug-induced hypokalaemia, could not be fully classified due to sanctioning rules preventing the postcoordination (i.e., a combination of specific codes, such as drug and diagnosis). However, coding without the loss of information was possible in the 35 of these 35 (100.0%) ADR cases when we were deviating from the cluster code order of the Reference Guide. In all 50 MEs, the mode could be encoded, but for none of the MEs, postcoordination, i.e., the assignment of the ME to a specific drug, was allowed. In conclusion, the ICD-11 three-part model enables us to acquire more detailed documentation of DRPs than the previous ICD versions did. However, the codability, documentation, and reporting of DRPs could be significantly improved by simple modifications of the current ICD-11 sanctioning rules and by the addition of new ICD-11 codes.

Feasibility of replacing the ICD-10-CM with the ICD-11 for morbidity coding: A content analysis

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to assess the feasibility of replacing the International Classification of Diseases-Tenth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) with the International Classification of Diseases-11th Revision (ICD-11) for morbidity coding based on content analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The most frequently used ICD-10-CM codes from each chapter covering 60% of patients were identified from Medicare claims and hospital data. Each ICD-10-CM code was recoded in the ICD-11, using postcoordination (combination of codes) if necessary. Recoding was performed by 2 terminologists independently. Failure analysis was done for cases where full representation was not achieved even with postcoordination. After recoding, the coding guidance (inclusions, exclusions, and index) of the ICD-10-CM and ICD-11 codes were reviewed for conflict.

RESULTS

Overall, 23.5% of 943 codes could be fully represented by the ICD-11 without postcoordination. Postcoordination is the potential game changer. It supports the full representation of 8.6% of 943 codes. Moreover, with the addition of only 9 extension codes, postcoordination supports the full representation of 35.2% of 943 codes. Coding guidance review identified potential conflicts in 10% of codes, but mostly not affecting recoding. The majority of the conflicts resulted from differences in granularity and default coding assumptions between the ICD-11 and ICD-10-CM.

CONCLUSIONS

With some minor enhancements to postcoordination, the ICD-11 can fully represent almost 60% of the most frequently used ICD-10-CM codes. Even without postcoordination, 23.5% full representation is comparable to the 24.3% of ICD-9-CM codes with exact match in the ICD-10-CM, so migrating from the ICD-10-CM to the ICD-11 is not necessarily more disruptive than from the International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification to the ICD-10-CM. Therefore, the ICD-11 (without a CM) should be considered as a candidate to replace the ICD-10-CM for morbidity coding.

Hospital Climate and Peer Report Intention on Adverse Medical Events: Role of Attribution and Rewards

Adverse medical events (AMEs) often occur in the healthcare workplace, and studies have shown that a positive atmosphere can reduce their incidence by increasing peer report intention. However, few studies have investigated the effect and action mechanism therein. We aimed to extend upon these studies by probing into the relationship between hospital climate and peer report intention, along with the mediating effect of attribution tendency and moderating effects of rewards. For this purpose, a cross-sectional survey was administered in a hospital among health professionals. We collected 503 valid questionnaires from health professionals in China and verified the hypothesis after sorting the questionnaires. The results of empirical analysis show that a positive hospital climate significantly induces individual internal attribution tendency, which in turn exerts a positive effect on peer report intention. Contract reward also helps to increase peer report intention, especially for health professionals with an internal attribution tendency. The findings contribute to the literature regarding AME management in hospitals by providing empirical evidence of the necessity for hospital climate and contract reward, and by providing insights to improve their integrated application.

A comparison of two structured taxonomic strategies in capturing adverse events in U.S. hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To compare the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Quality and Safety Review System (QSRS) and the proposed triadic structure for the 11th version of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-11) in their ability to capture adverse events in U.S. hospitals.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

One thousand patient admissions between 2014 and 2016 from three general, acute care hospitals located in Maryland and Washington D.C.

STUDY DESIGN

The admissions chosen for the study were a random sample from all three hospitals.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

All 1000 admissions were abstracted through QSRS by one set of Certified Coding Specialists and a different set of coders assigned the draft ICD-11 codes. Previously assigned ICD-10-CM codes for 230 of the admissions were also used.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We found less than 20 percent agreement between QSRS and ICD-11 in identifying the same adverse event. The likelihood of a mismatch between QSRS and ICD-11 was almost twice that of a match. The findings were similar to the agreement found between QSRS and ICD-10-CM in identifying the same adverse event. When coders were provided with a list of potential adverse events, the sensitivity and negative predictive value of ICD-11 improved.

CONCLUSIONS

While ICD-11 may offer an efficient way of identifying adverse events, our analysis found that in its draft form, it has a limited ability to capture the same types of events as QSRS. Coders may require additional training on identifying adverse events in the chart if ICD-11 is going to prove its maximum benefit.