Healthc Inform Res.  2017 Oct;23(4):293-303. 10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.293.

Validity of Principal Diagnoses in Discharge Summaries and ICD-10 Coding Assessments Based on National Health Data of Thailand

• Sukanya C

• KMID: 2396421
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.293

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
This study examined the validity of the principal diagnoses on discharge summaries and coding assessments.
METHODS
Data were collected from the National Health Security Office (NHSO) of Thailand in 2015. In total, 118,971 medical records were audited. The sample was drawn from government hospitals and private hospitals covered by the Universal Coverage Scheme in Thailand. Hospitals and cases were selected using NHSO criteria. The validity of the principal diagnoses listed in the "Summary and Coding Assessment" forms was established by comparing data from the discharge summaries with data obtained from medical record reviews, and additionally, by comparing data from the coding assessments with data in the computerized ICD (the data base used for reimbursement-purposes).
RESULTS
The summary assessments had low sensitivities (7.3%-37.9%), high specificities (97.2%-99.8%), low positive predictive values (9.2%-60.7%), and high negative predictive values (95.9%-99.3%). The coding assessments had low sensitivities (31.1%-69.4%), high specificities (99.0%-99.9%), moderate positive predictive values (43.8%-89.0%), and high negative predictive values (97.3%-99.5%). The discharge summaries and codings often contained mistakes, particularly the categories "Endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases", "Symptoms, signs, and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings not elsewhere classified", "Factors influencing health status and contact with health services", and "Injury, poisoning, and certain other consequences of external causes".
CONCLUSIONS
The validity of the principal diagnoses on the summary and coding assessment forms was found to be low. The training of physicians and coders must be strengthened to improve the validity of discharge summaries and codings.

Keyword

International Classification of Diseases; Clinical Coding, Medical Records; Sensitivity and Specificity; Thailand

MeSH Terms

Clinical Coding*
Diagnosis*
Hospitals, Private
International Classification of Diseases*
Medical Records
Poisoning
Sensitivity and Specificity
Thailand*
Universal Coverage

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Flow of audit assessments.

Reference

1. National Health Security Office. National Health Security Act B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002). Nonthaburi, Thailand: National Health Security Office;2002.

2. Quan H, Moskal L, Forster AJ, Brien S, Walker R, Romano PS, et al. International variation in the definition of ‘main condition’ in ICD-coded health data. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014; 26(5):511–515.

3. Pongpirul K, Wongkanaratanakul P. Coding audit for in-patient reimbursement of the National Health Security Office. J Health Syst Res. 2008; 2(4):535–545.

4. Apiwachaneewong S. Quality of inpatient records related to diagnosis related group in Changwat Kamphaengphet. J Health Sci. 2005; 15(5):730–739.

5. Pongpirul K, Walker DG, Winch PJ, Robinson C. A qualitative study of DRG coding practice in hospitals under the Thai Universal Coverage scheme. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011; 11:71.

6. Pongpirul K, Walker DG, Rahman H, Robinson C. DRG coding practice: a nationwide hospital survey in Thailand. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011; 11:290.

7. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th revision (ICD-10). 5th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization;2016.

8. Thailand Ministry of Public Health. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th revision Thai modification (ICD-10-TM): standard cording guideline. Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Public Health;2014.

9. Bonita R, Beaglehole R, Kjellstrom T. Basic epidemiology. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization;2007.

10. Karkhaneh M, Hagel BE, Couperthwaite A, Saunders LD, Voaklander DC, Rowe BH. Emergency department coding of bicycle and pedestrian injuries during the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Inj Prev. 2012; 18(2):88–93.

11. Chen G, Khan N, Walker R, Quan H. Validating ICD coding algorithms for diabetes mellitus from administrative data. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010; 89(2):189–195.

12. Thomsen RW, Lange P, Hellquist B, Frausing E, Bartels PD, Krog BR, et al. Validity and underrecording of diagnosis of COPD in the Danish National Patient Registry. Respir Med. 2011; 105(7):1063–1068.

13. Jolley RJ, Quan H, Jette N, Sawka KJ, Diep L, Goliath J, et al. Validation and optimisation of an ICD-10-coded case definition for sepsis using administrative health data. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(12):e009487.

14. Quan H, Li B, Saunders LD, Parsons GA, Nilsson CI, Alibhai A, et al. Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database. Health Serv Res. 2008; 43(4):1424–1441.

15. Patel AB, Quan H, Welsh RC, Deckert-Sookram J, Tymchak W, Sookram S, et al. Validity and utility of ICD-10 administrative health data for identifying ST- and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction based on physician chart review. CMAJ Open. 2015; 3(4):E413–E418.

16. O'Malley KJ, Cook KF, Price MD, Wildes KR, Hurdle JF, Ashton CM. Measuring diagnoses: ICD code accuracy. Health Serv Res. 2005; 40(5 Pt 2):1620–1639.