Dataset Information

Validity of ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 patients with hospital admissions or ED visits in Canada: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the validity of COVID-19 International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes and their combinations.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Acute care hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) in Alberta, Canada.

Participants

Patients who were admitted to hospital or presented to an ED in Alberta, as captured by local administrative databases between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021, who had a positive COVID-19 test and/or a COVID-19-related ICD-10 code.

Main outcome measures

The sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and 95% CIs for ICD-10 codes were computed. Stratified analysis on age group, sex, symptomatic status, mechanical ventilation, hospital type, patient intensive care unit (ICU) admission, discharge status and season of pandemic were conducted.

Results

Two overlapping subsets of the study population were considered: those who had a positive COVID-19 test (cohort A, for estimating sensitivity) and those who had a COVID-19-related ICD-10 code (cohort B, for estimating PPV). Cohort A included 17 979 ED patients and 6477 inpatients while cohort B included 33 675 ED patients and 18 746 inpatients. Of inpatients, 9.5% in cohort A and 8.1% in cohort B received mechanical ventilation. Over 13% of inpatients were admitted to ICU. The length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR: 3-14) for cohort A and 8 days (IQR: 3-19) for cohort B. In-hospital mortality was 15.9% and 38.8% for cohort A and B, respectively. The sensitivity for ICD-10 code U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified) was 82.5% (81.8%-83.2%) with a PPV of 93.1% (92.6%-93.6%). The combination of U07.1 and U07.3 (multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19) had a sensitivity of 82.5% (81.9%-83.2%) and PPV of 92.9% (92.4%-93.4%).

Conclusions

In Alberta, ICD-10 COVID-19 codes (U07.1 and U07.3) were coded well with high validity. This indicates administrative data can be used for COVID-19 research and pandemic management purposes.

SUBMITTER: Wu G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8787827 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Administrative data are widely used to study health systems and make important health policy decisions. Yet little is known about the influence of coder characteristics on administrative data validity in these studies. Our goal was to describe the relationship between several measures of validity in coded hospital discharge data and 1) coders' volume of coding (> or = 13,000 vs. <13,000 records), 2) coders' employment status (full- vs. part-time), and 3) hospital type. METHODS: This descriptive study examined 6 indicators of face validity in ICD-10 coded discharge records from 4 hospitals in Calgary, Canada between April 2002 and March 2007. Specifically, mean number of coded diagnoses, procedures, complications, Z-codes, and codes ending in 8 or 9 were compared by coding volume and employment status, as well as hospital type. The mean number of diagnoses was also compared across coder characteristics for 6 major conditions of varying complexity. Next, kappa statistics were computed to assess agreement between discharge data and linked chart data reabstracted by nursing chart reviewers. Kappas were compared across coder characteristics. RESULTS: 422,618 discharge records were coded by 59 coders during the study period. The mean number of diagnoses per record decreased from 5.2 in 2002/2003 to 3.9 in 2006/2007, while the number of records coded annually increased from 69,613 to 102,842. Coders at the tertiary hospital coded the most diagnoses (5.0 compared with 3.9 and 3.8 at other sites). There was no variation by coder or site characteristics for any other face validity indicator. The mean number of diagnoses increased from 1.5 to 7.9 with increasing complexity of the major diagnosis, but did not vary with coder characteristics. Agreement (kappa) between coded data and chart review did not show any consistent pattern with respect to coder characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This large study suggests that coder characteristics do not influence the validity of hospital discharge data. Other jurisdictions might benefit from implementing similar employment programs to ours, e.g.: a requirement for a 2-year college training program, a single management structure across sites, and rotation of coders between sites. Limitations include few coder characteristics available for study due to privacy concerns.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The phecode system was built upon the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) for phenome-wide association studies (PheWAS) using the electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVE:The goal of this paper was to develop and perform an initial evaluation of maps from the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes to phecodes. METHODS:We mapped ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM codes to phecodes using a number of methods and resources, such as concept relationships and explicit mappings from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Unified Medical Language System, Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms, and the National Library of Medicine. We assessed the coverage of the maps in two databases: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) using ICD-10-CM and the UK Biobank (UKBB) using ICD-10. We assessed the fidelity of the ICD-10-CM map in comparison to the gold-standard ICD-9-CM phecode map by investigating phenotype reproducibility and conducting a PheWAS. RESULTS:We mapped >75% of ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM codes to phecodes. Of the unique codes observed in the UKBB (ICD-10) and VUMC (ICD-10-CM) cohorts, >90% were mapped to phecodes. We observed 70-75% reproducibility for chronic diseases and <10% for an acute disease for phenotypes sourced from the ICD-10-CM phecode map. Using the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM maps, we conducted a PheWAS with a Lipoprotein(a) genetic variant, rs10455872, which replicated two known genotype-phenotype associations with similar effect sizes: coronary atherosclerosis (ICD-9-CM: P<.001; odds ratio (OR) 1.60 [95% CI 1.43-1.80] vs ICD-10-CM: P<.001; OR 1.60 [95% CI 1.43-1.80]) and chronic ischemic heart disease (ICD-9-CM: P<.001; OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.35-1.79] vs ICD-10-CM: P<.001; OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.22-1.77]). CONCLUSIONS:This study introduces the beta versions of ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM to phecode maps that enable researchers to leverage accumulated ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM data for PheWAS in the EHR.

Project description:Background On October 1, 2015, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitioned from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD-9) to the ICD, Tenth Revision ( ICD-10) compendium of codes for diagnosis and billing in health care, but translation between the two is often inexact. Here we describe a validated crosswalk to translate ICD-9 codes into ICD-10 codes, with a focus on complications after carotid revascularization and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Methods and Results We devised an 8-step process to derive and validate ICD-10 codes from existing ICD-9 codes. We used publicly available sources, including the General Equivalence Mapping database, to translate ICD-9 codes used in prior work to ICD-10 codes. We defined ICD-10 codes as validated if they were concordant with the initial ICD-9 codes after manual comparison by two physicians. Our primary validation measure was the percent of valid ICD-10 codes out of the total ICD-10 codes obtained during translation. We began with 126 ICD-9 diagnosis codes used for complication identification after carotid revascularization procedures, and 97 ICD-9 codes for complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm procedures. Translation generated 143 ICD-10 codes for carotid revascularization, a 14% increase from the initial 126 codes. Manual comparison demonstrated 98% concordance, with 99% agreement between the reviewers. Similarly, we identified 108 ICD-10 codes for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, an 11% increase from the initial 97 ICD-9 codes. We again noted excellent concordance and agreement (98% and 100%, respectively). Manual review identified 4 ICD-10 codes incorrectly translated from ICD-9 codes for carotid revascularization, and 3 codes incorrectly translated for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Conclusions Algorithms to crosswalk lists of ICD-9 codes to ICD-10 codes can leverage electronic resources to minimize the burden of code translation. However, manual review for code validation may be necessary, with collaboration across institutions for researchers to share their efforts.