Clinical coding of long COVID in English primary care: a federated analysis of 58 million patient records
COVID-19
electronic health records
general practice
long COVID
primary health care
Journal
The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
ISSN: 1478-5242
Titre abrégé: Br J Gen Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005323
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
received:
07
05
2021
accepted:
18
06
2021
pubmed:
4
8
2021
medline:
4
11
2021
entrez:
3
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Long COVID describes new or persistent symptoms at least 4 weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this phenomenon were recently created. To describe the use of long-COVID codes, and variation of use by general practice, demographic variables, and over time. Population-based cohort study in English primary care. Working on behalf of NHS England, OpenSAFELY data were used encompassing 96% of the English population between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021. The proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID was measured overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system (EMIS or TPP), and week. Long COVID was recorded for 23 273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed among practices, with 26.7% of practices having never used the codes. Regional variation ranged between 20.3 per 100 000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval [CI] = 19.3 to 21.4) and 55.6 per 100 000 people in London (95% CI = 54.1 to 57.1). Coding was higher among females (52.1, 95% CI = 51.3 to 52.9) than males (28.1, 95% CI = 27.5 to 28.7), and higher among practices using EMIS (53.7, 95% CI = 52.9 to 54.4) than those using TPP (20.9, 95% CI = 20.3 to 21.4). Current recording of long COVID in primary care is very low, and variable between practices. This may reflect patients not presenting; clinicians and patients holding different diagnostic thresholds; or challenges with the design and communication of diagnostic codes. Increased awareness of diagnostic codes is recommended to facilitate research and planning of services, and also surveys with qualitative work to better evaluate clinicians' understanding of the diagnosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Long COVID describes new or persistent symptoms at least 4 weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this phenomenon were recently created.
AIM
To describe the use of long-COVID codes, and variation of use by general practice, demographic variables, and over time.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Population-based cohort study in English primary care.
METHOD
Working on behalf of NHS England, OpenSAFELY data were used encompassing 96% of the English population between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021. The proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID was measured overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system (EMIS or TPP), and week.
RESULTS
Long COVID was recorded for 23 273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed among practices, with 26.7% of practices having never used the codes. Regional variation ranged between 20.3 per 100 000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval [CI] = 19.3 to 21.4) and 55.6 per 100 000 people in London (95% CI = 54.1 to 57.1). Coding was higher among females (52.1, 95% CI = 51.3 to 52.9) than males (28.1, 95% CI = 27.5 to 28.7), and higher among practices using EMIS (53.7, 95% CI = 52.9 to 54.4) than those using TPP (20.9, 95% CI = 20.3 to 21.4).
CONCLUSION
Current recording of long COVID in primary care is very low, and variable between practices. This may reflect patients not presenting; clinicians and patients holding different diagnostic thresholds; or challenges with the design and communication of diagnostic codes. Increased awareness of diagnostic codes is recommended to facilitate research and planning of services, and also surveys with qualitative work to better evaluate clinicians' understanding of the diagnosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34340970
pii: BJGP.2021.0301
doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0301
pmc: PMC8340730
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e806-e814Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_20059
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_20051
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S003975/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_20030
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_20058
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
Liam Smeeth
(L)
Ben Goldacre
(B)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Authors.
Références
Nat Med. 2021 Apr;27(4):626-631
pubmed: 33692530
Inform Prim Care. 2007;15(3):143-50
pubmed: 18005561
Nature. 2021 Jun;594(7862):259-264
pubmed: 33887749
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):430-436
pubmed: 32640463
Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Aug 27;70(698):e636-e643
pubmed: 32784218
BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 25;7(1):e012905
pubmed: 28122831
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 16;22(10):e17003
pubmed: 33064085
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Nov;9(11):1275-1287
pubmed: 34627560
BMJ. 2021 Mar 31;372:n693
pubmed: 33789877
BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 19;3(8):e003320
pubmed: 23959757