Suchergebnisse

Background The percentage of total body surface area (%TBSA) burned and burn depth provide valuable information on burn injury severity. Objective This study investigated the concordance between The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) codes and expert burn clinicians in assessing burn injury severity. Method We conducted a retrospective population-based review of all patients who sustained a burn injury between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2019, requiring admission into a specialist burn service across Australia and New Zealand. The %TBSA burned (including the percentage of full thickness burns) recorded by expert burn clinicians within the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand (BRANZ) were compared to ICD-10-AM coding. Results 20,642 cases (71.5%) with ICD-10-AM code data were recorded. Overall, kappa scores (95% confidence interval [CI]) for burn size ranged from 0.64 (95% CI 0.63–0.66) to 0.86 (95% CI 0.78–0.94) indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement across all %TBSA groups. When stratified by depth, the lowest agreement was observed for < 10% TBSA and < 10% full thickness (kappa 0.03; 95% CI 0.02–0.04) and the highest agreement was observed for burns of ≥ 90% TBSA and ≥ 90% full thickness (kappa 0.72; 95% CI 0.58–0.85). Conclusion Overall, there was substantial agreement between the BRANZ and ICD-10-AM coded data for %TBSA classification. When %TBSA classification was stratified by burn depth, greater agreement was observed for larger and deeper burns compared with smaller and superficial burns. Implications Greater consistency in the classification of burns is needed.

The percentage of total body surface area burnt (%TBSA) is a critical measure of burn injury severity and a key predictor of burn injury outcome. This study evaluated the level of agreement between four sources of %TBSA using 120 cases identified through the Victorian State Trauma Registry. Expert clinician, ICD-10-AM, Abbreviated Injury Scale, and burns registry coding were compared using measures of agreement. There was near-perfect agreement (weighted Kappa statistic 0.81–1) between all sources of data, suggesting that ICD-10-AM is a valid source of %TBSA and use of ICD-10-AM codes could reduce the resource used by trauma and burns registries capturing this information.

Background: Alcohol use is a key preventable risk factor for serious injury. To effectively prevent alcohol-related injuries, we rely on the accurate surveillance of alcohol involvement in injury events. This often involves the use of administrative data, such as International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) coding. Objective: To evaluate the completeness and accuracy of using administrative coding for the surveillance of alcohol involvement in major trauma injury events by comparing patient blood alcohol concentration (BAC) with ICD-10-AM coding. Method: This retrospective cohort study examined 2918 injury patients aged ≥18 years who presented to a major trauma centre in Victoria, Australia, over a 2-year period, of which 78% ( n = 2286) had BAC data available. Results: While 15% of patients had a non-zero BAC, only 4% had an ICD-10-AM code suggesting acute alcohol involvement. The agreement between blood alcohol test results and ICD-10-AM coding of acute alcohol involvement was fair ( κ = 0.33, 95% confidence interval: 0.27–0.38). Of the 341 patients with a non-zero BAC, 82 (24.0%) had ICD-10-AM codes related to acute alcohol involvement. Supplementary factors Y90 Evidence of alcohol involvement determined by blood alcohol level codes, which specifically describe patient BAC, were assigned to just 29% of eligible patients with a non-zero BAC. Conclusion: ICD-10-AM coding underestimated the proportion of alcohol-related injuries compared to patient BAC. Implications: Given the current role of administrative data in the surveillance of alcohol-related injuries, these findings may have significant implications for the implementation of cost-effective strategies for preventing alcohol-related injuries.

Background: Despite the reliance on administrative data in epidemiological studies, there is little information on the completeness of co-morbidities in administrative data coded from medical records. Objective: The aim of this study was to quantify the agreement between the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) administrative coding of mental health, drug and alcohol co-morbidities and medical records in a severely injured patient population. Method: A random sample of patients ( n = 500) captured by the Victorian State Trauma Registry and definitively managed at the state's adult major trauma services was selected for the study. Retrospective medical record review was conducted to collect data about documented co-morbidities. The agreement between ICD-10-AM data generated from routine hospital coding and medical record–based co-morbidities was determined using Cohen's κ and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) statistics. Results: The percentage of agreement between the medical record and ICD-10-AM coding for mental health, drug and alcohol co-morbidities was 72.8%, and the PABAK showed moderate agreement (PABAK = 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37, 0.54). There was no difference in agreement between unintentional injury patients (PABAK = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.62) compared with intentional injury patients (PABAK = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.49), and no change in agreement for patients admitted before (PABAK = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.50) and after the introduction of mandatory co-morbidity coding (PABAK = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.54). Conclusion: Despite documentation in the medical record, a large proportion of mental health, drug and alcohol conditions were not coded in ICD-10-AM. Acknowledgement of these limitations is needed when using ICD-10-AM coded co-morbidities in research studies and health policy development. Implications: This work has implications for researchers of drug and alcohol abuse; mental health; accidents and injuries; workers' compensation; health workforce; health services; and policy decisions for healthcare, emergency services, insurance industry, national productivity and welfare costings reliant on those research outcomes.