Comparability Ratios for ICDA-8 and ICD-9-CM
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comparability of Diagnostic Data Coded by the 8th and 9th Revisions of the International Classification of Diseases This report describes how the changes in the classification system used to code diagnoses reported in the National Hospital Discharge and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys for utilization occurring in 1979 and later affect the comparability with similar data collected for utilization from 1968 through 1978. Comparability ratios are developed by coding the data using both coding classification revisions and dividing the national estimate based on one revision by the estimate based on the other revision. The comparability ratios can be used to estimate what the values published using one revision of the classification system would have been had coding been conducted according to the other revision. Data Evaluation and Methods Research Series 2, No. 104 DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 87–1 378 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service National Center for Health Statistics Hyattsville, Md. July 1987 Copyright information All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated. Suggasted citation National Center for Health Statistics, B. C. Duggar and W. F. Lew!s: Comparability of diagnostic data coded by the 8th and 9th revisions of the International Classification of Diseases. Vita/ and Heakh Statistics. Series 2, No. 104. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 87-1378. Public Health Service, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1987 Library of Congrass Cataloging-in-Publication Data Duggar, 8enjamln C. Comparability of diagnostic data coded by the 8th and 9th revisions of the International Classification of Diseases. (Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research ; no. 104) (DHHS publication ; no, (PHS) 87–1378) “September 1986.” bibliography. 1. Medical care—United States—Utilization—Evalua- tion—Statistical methods. 2, National Hosp!tal Dtscharge Survey (U. S.) —Evaluation—Statistical methods. 3. National Ambulatow Medical Care Survey (U.S.)— Evaluation—Statistical methods. 1. Lewis, W. Frank, 1936– Il. National Center for Health Statistics (U. S.) Ill. Title. IV, Series: Vital and health I statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research ; no. 104. V. Series: DHHS publication ; no. (PHS) 87-1378. [DNLM: 1, National Hospital Discharge Survey (U. S.) 2. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (U. S.) 3. Ambulatory Care—United States— statistics. 4, Dwease-classification. 5. Hospitals— utilization—United States—statistics, 6, Patient Dis- charge—United States—statistics. W2 A N148vb no. 104] RA409, U45 no. 104 362.1 ‘0723 S 86–607944 [RA41O.7] [362.2’1 ‘0723] ISBN 0–8406–0364-9 National Center for Health Statistics Manning Feinleib, M.D., Dr. P.H., Director Robert A. Israel, Deputy Director Jacob J. Feldman, Ph.D., Associate DirectorforAnalysis and Epidemiology Gail F. Fisher, Ph.D., Associate Director for Planning and Extramural Programs Peter L, Hurley, Associate Director for Vital and Health Statistics Systems Stephen E. Nieberding, Associate Director for Management George A. Schnack, Associate Director for Data Processing and Services Monroe G. Sirken, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research and Methodology Sandra S. Smith, Information Ojicer Division of Health Care Statistics W. Edward Bacon, Ph.D., Director Joan F. Van Nostrand, Deputy Director Mary Moien, Chiej Hospital Care Statistics Branch James E. DeLozier, ChieJ Ambulatory Care Statistics Branch Cooperationof the U.S. Bureau of the Census Under the legislationestablishingthe National Heslth Survey, the Public Health Service is authorizedto use, insofar as pxsible, the services or facilities of other Federal, State, or private agencies. In accordancewith specificationsestablished by the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, under a contractual arrangement,participated in plsnning the survey snd collectingthe data. The study of the comparability of mortality data for each Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities (CPHA). of the recent revisions of the International Classillcation of Delray Green, R.R.A., of NCHS, served as Project Oftlcer for Diseases has been an important undertaking by the National the contract, Benjamin C, Duggar, SC.D,, Vice President of Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). However, the study of JRB Associates, served as Principal Investigator and Robert the comparability of morbidity and health services utilization H. Seeman, chief nosologist for CPHA, managed the CPHA was not undertaken until the substitution of ICD-9–CM for subcontract and provided much of the interpretive findings that ICDA-8 was implemented in 1979. The study described in explain the observed comparability ratios. Thomas McLemore this report was conducted between 1982 and 1984 and was of NCHS coordinated the comparability study of NationaI made possible through the efforts of many individuals within Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data, while Eileen McCarthy, and outside NCHS. The study was conducted under Contract RR.A., coordinated the National Hospital Discharge Survey No, 282-82-2122 between NCHS and JRB Associates, a analysis. W. Frank Lewis of NCHS served as the Government company of Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC). Project Ofiicer for a subsequent contract with SAIC (Order JRB Associates directly conducted the reabstracting, recoding, No. 85A046392201D) to prepare the earlier findings for pub- and data processing of health survey data previously coded in lication as an NCHS Series 2 report. The coding in ICD-9- ICDA-8. Much of the interpretation of the effects of the revi- CM was supervised by Carole Wakiner, A.R.T., of SAIC; F. sion from ICDA–8 to ICD-9-CM was subcontracted to the Faye Brown, RR.A., served as data quality control consultant. ... Ill Introduction . 1 Purposes ofthe report . 1 Prior comparability studies . 1 Design of thestudy . 3 The National HospitalDischarge Survey . 3 The National AmbulatoryMedical Care Survey . 4 National Hospital Discharge Survey findings . 7 Descriptionoftable l . 7 Chapter l—hfectivea ndparasitic diseases . 7 Chapter2—Neoplasms . 7 Chapter 3—Endocrine, nutritionrd, and metabolicdiseases . 8 Chapter 4—Diseases oftheblood andblood-formingorgans . 9 Chapter5—Mental disorders . 9 Chapter6—Diseases ofthenervous system and sense organs . 9 Chapter7—Diseases ofthecirculatory system . 9 Chapter 8—Diseases oftherespiratory system . 9 Chapter9—Diseases ofthedigestive system . 10 Chapter 10—Diseases ofthegenitourinary system . 10 Chapter ll—Complications ofpregnancy, childbirth, andthepuerpetium. 10 Chapter 12—Diseases ofthe skin and subcutaneous tissue . 10 Chapter 13—Diseases ofthemusculoskeletal system andconnective tissue . 10 Chapter 14—Congenital anomalies. 10 Chapter 15—Certaincauses ofperinatal morbidity andmortality . 10 Chapter 16—Symptoms andill-defined conditions . 11 Chapter 17—Accidents,poisoning, andviolence (nature ofinjury) . 11 Special conditions—Supplemental classification. 11 National AmbulatoryMedical Care Survey finding s. 12 Description oftable 2 . 12 Infectious andparasiticdiseases . 12 Neoplasm . 12 Diseases ofthe circulatorysystem . 13 Diseases ofthe respiratory system . 13 Diseases ofthe digestive system... ........... 13 Diseases oftheskin andsubcutaneous tissue . 13 Diseases ofthemusculoskeletal system . 13 Symptoms and ill-definedconditions . 14 Special conditions andexarninations without sickness . 14 Uses ofthe comparability ratios.. 15 Comparisons with otherstudies.