Comparison of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM Crosswalks Derived by Physician and Clinical Coder vs. Automated Methods.
Coding algorithms
ICD-10 transition
diagnosis codes
general equivalence mappings
healthcare research
Journal
Perspectives in health information management
ISSN: 1559-4122
Titre abrégé: Perspect Health Inf Manag
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101219871
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
entrez:
26
5
2021
pubmed:
27
5
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate whether automated methods are sufficient for deriving ICD-10-CM algorithms by comparing ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalks from general equivalence mappings (GEMs) with physician/clinical coder-derived crosswalks. Forward mapping was used to derive ICD-10-CM crosswalks for 10 conditions. As a sensitivity analysis, forward-backward mapping (FBM) was also conducted for three clinical conditions. The physician/coder independently developed crosswalks for the same conditions. Differences between the crosswalks were summarized using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (JSC). Physician/coder crosswalks were typically far more inclusive than GEMs crosswalks. Crosswalks for peripheral artery disease were most dissimilar (JSC: 0.06), while crosswalks for mild cognitive impairment (JSC: 1) and congestive heart failure (0.85) were most similar. FBM added ICD-10-CM codes for all three conditions but did not consistently increase similarity between crosswalks. The GEMs and physician/coder algorithms rarely aligned fully; human review is still required for ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalk development.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1eInformations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the American Health Information Management Association.
Références
Med Care. 2005 Nov;43(11):1130-9
pubmed: 16224307
Fed Regist. 2014 Aug 4;79(149):45128-34
pubmed: 25122944
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2016 Apr 12;4(1):1211
pubmed: 27195309