ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien
Updating Canada's diagnostic coding system for physician billing: Exploring family physician perspectives of ICD-11 and ICPC-3.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess how family physicians use and perceive the
designCross-sectional, pre-implementation study.
settingCanada.
participantsFamily physicians.
main outcome measuresThis mixed-methods study used an online patient vignette coding exercise and postcoding survey. Time taken to code and coding consistency were assessed and determined using the coding exercise. Physician-reported satisfaction measures and perspectives related to the 3 systems were evaluated using the postcoding survey.
resultsA total of 161 family physicians participated in this study. Participants coded significantly faster with the ICPC-3 (median=48 seconds, interquartile range [IQR]=64 seconds), compared to the ICD-11 (median=59 seconds, IQR=71 seconds) and the ICD-9 (median=57 seconds, IQR=75 seconds). There were no differences in coding consistency based on the coding system used. More participants rated both the ICD-11 and ICPC-3 positively compared to the ICD-9 with respect to comprehensiveness, ability to find codes, precision, ease of use, ability to capture necessary information, and ability to capture medical and social complexity.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that the alternative coding systems, ICD-11 and ICPC-3, were associated with better utility and a more positive user experience among family physicians compared to the ICD-9. These study findings can be used as a foundation for future discussions toward an improved coding system in Canada.
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.