Exploring the differences in ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features across countries: an international survey
Open Access
- 7 April 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Health Services Research
- Vol. 21 (1), 1-9
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06302-w
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Validation of a case definition for depression in administrative data against primary chart data as a reference standardBMC Psychiatry, 2019
- Evaluating the impact of expanding the number of diagnosis codes reported in inpatient discharge databases on the counts and rates of birth defectsJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2018
- Development of the ICD-10 simplified version and field testHealth Information Management Journal, 2017
- Under-coding of secondary conditions in coded hospital health data: Impact of co-existing conditions, death status and number of codes in a recordHealth Informatics Journal, 2016
- ICD-10: History and ContextAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology, 2016
- Quality of administrative health databases in Canada: A scoping reviewCanadian Journal of Public Health, 2016
- An Introduction to Health Care Administrative DataThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 2015
- How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety.International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2013
- The Development, Evolution, and Modifications of ICD-10Medical Care, 2010
- Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral SamplingSociological Methods & Research, 1981