ArticleEye (London, England)2019
Clinical coding and data quality in oculoplastic procedures.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Financial implications of improving clinical coding in cataract surgery.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Targeted education for clinicians and clinical coding staff improves the accuracy of clinical coding: A quality improvement project.Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models in Extracting Cognitive Exam Dates and Scores.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Surgeon involvement in clinical coding to improve data accuracy and remuneration in a shoulder and elbow unit.Shoulder & elbow · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHospitals in England are reimbursed via national tariffs set out by NHS England. The tariffs payable to hospitals are determined by the activity coded for each patient's hospital visit. There are no national standards or publications within oculoplastics for coding accuracy. Our audit aimed to determine the accuracy of coding oculoplastic procedures carried out in theatres and to assess the financial implications of any discrepancies.
methodsWe carried out a prospective audit of consecutive oculoplastic procedures performed at one hospital site over a 6-week period. We subsequently created a coding proforma and performed a re-audit using the same methods.
resultsIn the first cycle, clinical coding was 'correct' in 30.7% of cases, 'incomplete' for 12.9% and 'incorrect' for 56.5%. Of the 'incorrect' codes, 54.3% were coded as non-oculoplastic procedures (e.g. extraocular muscle surgery). We discussed our findings with the coding team in order to address the sources of error. We also created a 'tick box' coding proforma, for completion by surgeons. Our re-audit results showed an improvement of 'correct' coding to 85.7%.
conclusionClinical coding is complex and vulnerable to inaccuracy. Our audit showed a high rate of coding error, which improved following collaboration with our coding team to address the sources of error and by creating a coding proforma to improve accuracy. Accurate clinical coding has financial implications for hospital trusts and consequently Clinical Commissioning Groups. In times of severe financial pressures, this could be a valuable tool, if rolled out over all specialities, to make much needed savings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.