ACC/AHA 2013 Methodology for Developing Clinical Data Standards: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards

Regulatory and Implementation Considerations for Artificial Intelligence

Successful artificial intelligence (AI) implementation is predicated on the trust of clinicians and patients, and is achieved through a culture of responsible use, focusing on regulations, standards, and education. Otolaryngologists can overcome barriers in AI implementation by promoting data standardization through professional societies, engaging in institutional efforts to integrate AI, and developing otolaryngology-specific AI education for both trainees and practitioners.

Nomenclature for Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Care: Unification of Clinical and Administrative Nomenclature - The 2021 International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code (IPCCC) and the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)

Substantial progress has been made in the standardization of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care. In 1936, Maude Abbott published her Atlas of Congenital Cardiac Disease, which was the first formal attempt to classify congenital heart disease. The International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code (IPCCC) is now utilized worldwide and has most recently become the paediatric and congenital cardiac component of the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The most recent publication of the IPCCC was in 2017. This manuscript provides an updated 2021 version of the IPCCC. The International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease (ISNPCHD), in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), developed the paediatric and congenital cardiac nomenclature that is now within the eleventh version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). This unification of IPCCC and ICD-11 is the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature and is the first time that the clinical nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care and the administrative nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care are harmonized. The resultant congenital cardiac component of ICD-11 was increased from 29 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-9 and 73 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-10 to 318 codes submitted by ISNPCHD through 2018 for incorporation into ICD-11. After these 318 terms were incorporated into ICD-11 in 2018, the WHO ICD-11 team added an additional 49 terms, some of which are acceptable legacy terms from ICD-10, while others provide greater granularity than the ISNPCHD thought was originally acceptable. Thus, the total number of paediatric and congenital cardiac terms in ICD-11 is 367. In this manuscript, we describe and review the terminology, hierarchy, and definitions of the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature. This article, therefore, presents a global system of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care that unifies clinical and administrative nomenclature.The members of ISNPCHD realize that the nomenclature published in this manuscript will continue to evolve. The version of the IPCCC that was published in 2017 has evolved and changed, and it is now replaced by this 2021 version. In the future, ISNPCHD will again publish updated versions of IPCCC, as IPCCC continues to evolve.

Nomenclature for Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Care: Unification of Clinical and Administrative Nomenclature - The 2021 International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code (IPCCC) and the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)

Substantial progress has been made in the standardization of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care. In 1936, Maude Abbott published her Atlas of Congenital Cardiac Disease, which was the first formal attempt to classify congenital heart disease. The International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code (IPCCC) is now utilized worldwide and has most recently become the paediatric and congenital cardiac component of the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The most recent publication of the IPCCC was in 2017. This manuscript provides an updated 2021 version of the IPCCC.The International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease (ISNPCHD), in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), developed the paediatric and congenital cardiac nomenclature that is now within the eleventh version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). This unification of IPCCC and ICD-11 is the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature and is the first time that the clinical nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care and the administrative nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care are harmonized. The resultant congenital cardiac component of ICD-11 was increased from 29 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-9 and 73 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-10 to 318 codes submitted by ISNPCHD through 2018 for incorporation into ICD-11. After these 318 terms were incorporated into ICD-11 in 2018, the WHO ICD-11 team added an additional 49 terms, some of which are acceptable legacy terms from ICD-10, while others provide greater granularity than the ISNPCHD thought was originally acceptable. Thus, the total number of paediatric and congenital cardiac terms in ICD-11 is 367. In this manuscript, we describe and review the terminology, hierarchy, and definitions of the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature. This article, therefore, presents a global system of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care that unifies clinical and administrative nomenclature.The members of ISNPCHD realize that the nomenclature published in this manuscript will continue to evolve. The version of the IPCCC that was published in 2017 has evolved and changed, and it is now replaced by this 2021 version. In the future, ISNPCHD will again publish updated versions of IPCCC, as IPCCC continues to evolve.

2021 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Data Standards for Heart Failure)

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Comparing routine administrative data with registry data for assessing quality of hospital care in patients with myocardial infarction using deterministic record linkage

Background

Assessment of quality of care in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) should be based on data that effectively enable determination of quality. With the need to simplify measurement techniques, the question arises whether routine data can be used for this purpose. We therefore compared data from a German sickness fund (AOK) with data from the Berlin Myocardial Infarction Registry (BMIR).

Methods

We included patients hospitalised for treatment of MI in Berlin from 2009-2011. We matched 2305 patients from AOK and BMIR by using deterministic record linkage with indirect identifiers. For matched patients we compared the frequency in documentation between AOK and BMIR for quality assurance variables and calculated the kappa coefficient (KC) as a measure of agreement.

Results

There was almost perfect agreement in documentation between AOK and BMIR data for matched patients for: catheter laboratory (KC: 0.874), ST elevation MI (KC: 0.826), diabetes (KC: 0.818), percutaneous coronary intervention (KC: 0.860) and hospital mortality (KC: 0.952). The remaining variables compared showed moderate or less than moderate agreement (KC < 0.6), and were grouped in Category II with less frequent documentation in AOK for risk factors and aspects of patients’ history; in Category III with more frequent documentation in AOK for comorbidities; and in Category IV for medication at and after hospital discharge.

Conclusions

Routine data are primarily collected and defined for reimbursement purposes. Quality assurance represents merely a secondary use. This explains why only a limited number of variables showed almost perfect agreement in documentation between AOK and BMIR. If routine data are to be used for quality assessment, they must be constantly monitored and further developed for this new application. Furthermore, routine data should be complemented with registry data by well-established methods of record linkage to realistically reflect the situation – also for those quality-associated variables not collected in routine data.

Acquisition, Analysis, and Sharing of Data in 2015 and Beyond: A Survey of the Landscape: A Conference Report From the American Heart Association Data Summit 2015

BACKGROUND

A 1.5-day interactive forum was convened to discuss critical issues in the acquisition, analysis, and sharing of data in the field of cardiovascular and stroke science. The discussion will serve as the foundation for the American Heart Association's (AHA's) near-term and future strategies in the Big Data area. The concepts evolving from this forum may also inform other fields of medicine and science.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 47 participants representing stakeholders from 7 domains (patients, basic scientists, clinical investigators, population researchers, clinicians and healthcare system administrators, industry, and regulatory authorities) participated in the conference. Presentation topics included updates on data as viewed from conventional medical and nonmedical sources, building and using Big Data repositories, articulation of the goals of data sharing, and principles of responsible data sharing. Facilitated breakout sessions were conducted to examine what each of the 7 stakeholder domains wants from Big Data under ideal circumstances and the possible roles that the AHA might play in meeting their needs. Important areas that are high priorities for further study regarding Big Data include a description of the methodology of how to acquire and analyze findings, validation of the veracity of discoveries from such research, and integration into investigative and clinical care aspects of future cardiovascular and stroke medicine. Potential roles that the AHA might consider include facilitating a standards discussion (eg, tools, methodology, and appropriate data use), providing education (eg, healthcare providers, patients, investigators), and helping build an interoperable digital ecosystem in cardiovascular and stroke science.

CONCLUSION

There was a consensus across stakeholder domains that Big Data holds great promise for revolutionizing the way cardiovascular and stroke research is conducted and clinical care is delivered; however, there is a clear need for the creation of a vision of how to use it to achieve the desired goals. Potential roles for the AHA center around facilitating a discussion of standards, providing education, and helping establish a cardiovascular digital ecosystem. This ecosystem should be interoperable and needs to interface with the rapidly growing digital object environment of the modern-day healthcare system.