Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29181239›Full record

ArticleHealthcare informatics research2017

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

Chongthawonsatid Sukanya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Chongthawonsatid SukanyaDepartment of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study examined the validity of the principal diagnoses on discharge summaries and coding assessments.

methodsData 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).

resultsThe 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".

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Clinical Coding, Medical RecordsInternational Classification of DiseasesSensitivity and SpecificityThailand

Identifiers

PMID29181239
PMCPMC5688029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.