International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Implementation: Is the Workforce Ready?

After many delays, the United States finally implemented the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification/Procedural Coding System on October 1, 2015, bringing the United States into line with other industrialized nations, most of which had been using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision for many years. We outline the benefits and challenges to the preparatory activities of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification/Procedural Coding System implementation for the US health care industry. To ease the transition, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allowed health care facilities to submit test claims prior to the implementation date and delivered feedback on the acceptability of those claims. Early results indicated a relatively smooth transition, although some questions regarding the available data remain. Additional data, especially data concerning outcomes, are required.

[Improving the visibility of rare diseases in health care systems by specific routine coding]. / Verbesserung der Sichtbarkeit seltener Erkrankungen in Gesundheitssystemen durch spezifische Routinekodierung.

The evaluation of healthcare providers' routine data is an important basis for the analysis, planning and evaluation of measures in public health. The representation of rare diseases in the classifications that are used to record health data is not adequate. Coding rare diseases in a specific way is a challenge all around the world. There is still no general international solution for the routine coding of rare diseases.The double coding of rare diseases with ICD-10 Codes and Orphacodes is a short-term and low-cost alternative solution. Furthermore, this double coding enables international comparability. The specific encoding of rare diseases through this double coding can improve their capturing for statistical analysis and thus their visibility in healthcare systems. Nevertheless, the provision of a new classification is not enough to gather valid data. Some measures have already been adopted in Germany (and at the European level) in order to support the implementation of this double coding. Subsequently it would be possible to adopt more specific public health measures, based on better data, in order to provide better care to the more than four million people in Germany affected by rare diseases.

Optimization and simplification of the Allergic and Hypersensitivity conditions classification for the ICD-11.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, an international collaboration of Allergy Academies, including first the World Allergy Organization (WAO), the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), and then the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (SLAAI), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI), has spent tremendous efforts to have a better and updated classification of allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the forthcoming International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 version by providing evidences and promoting actions for the need for changes. The latest action was the implementation of a classification proposal of hypersensitivity/allergic diseases built by crowdsourcing the Allergy Academy leaderships. METHODS: Following bilateral discussions with the representatives of the ICD-11 revision, a face-to-face meeting was held at the United Nations Office in Geneva and a simplification process of the hypersensitivity/allergic disorders classification was carried out to better fit the ICD structure. RESULTS: We are here presenting the end result of what we consider to be a model of good collaboration between the World Health Organization and a specialty. CONCLUSION: We strongly believe that the outcomes of all past and future actions will impact positively the recognition of the allergy specialty as well as the quality improvement of healthcare system for allergic and hypersensitivity conditions worldwide.

Getting Ready for ICD-10 and Meaningful Use Stage 2.

For the past 24 years, most developed countries have used the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) to report physician services. In the United States, physicians have continued to use the American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition and the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System. The ICD-10-Clinical Modification (CM) has approximately 4.9 times more codes than the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision. ICD-10-CM allows for more specific descriptors of a procedure and is broken down by category, etiology, anatomic site, severity, and extension. ICD-10-CM is scheduled to be implemented by Medicare and commercial payers on October 1, 2015. In addition to ICD-10 implementation, physicians have to meet the requirements of the Meaningful Use Electronic Health Record Incentive Program. The Meaningful Use program is designed to promote the use of certified electronic health technology by providing eligible professionals with incentive payments if they meet the defined core and menu objectives of each stage of the program. All core measures must be met; however, providers can choose to meet a preset number of menu measures. Meaningful Use Stage 1 required eligible professionals to meet core and menu objectives that focused on data capture and sharing. Meaningful Use Stage 2 requires eligible professionals to meet core and menu objects that focus on advanced clinical processes for a full year in 2015. Stage 3 has been delayed until 2017, and core and menu measures that will focus on improving outcomes have not yet been defined. It is important for orthopaedic surgeons to understand the history of and techniques for the use of ICD-10-CM in clinical practice. Orthopaedic surgeons also should understand the requirements for Meaningful Use Stages 1 and 2, including the core objectives that must be met to achieve satisfactory attestation.

Sexual health in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD): implications for measurement and beyond.

This paper examines different dimensions of sexual health as related to the measurement of sexual health indicators and the proposed changes in the International Classification of Diseases to address issues related to sexuality and sexual health with an aim of informing health policy-making and programming. The lack of mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating sexual health outcomes has impeded the development of policies and programmes that support sexual health. The potential impact of changes to the ICD-11 is major and far-reaching given that the ICD is used by countries to define eligibility and access to health services and to formulate relevant policies and laws, and is used by health professionals as a basis for conceptualizing health conditions, treatments and outcomes. Improving the measurement of sexual health-related indicators builds the evidence base on scientific knowledge of sex, sexuality, sexual health and rights. As we stand on the cusp of the post-2015 era and the development agenda transitions to the Sustainable Development Goals, a unique opportunity presents itself to further consider how sexual health is defined, conceptualized, and monitored.

Global classification and coding of hypersensitivity diseases - An EAACI - WAO survey, strategic paper and review.

Hypersensitivity diseases are not adequately coded in the International Coding of Diseases (ICD)-10 resulting in misclassification, leading to low visibility of these conditions and general accuracy of official statistics. To call attention to the inadequacy of the ICD-10 in relation to allergic and hypersensitivity diseases and to contribute to improvements to be made in the forthcoming revision of ICD, a web-based global survey of healthcare professionals' attitudes toward allergic disorders classification was proposed to the members of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) (individuals) and World Allergy Organization (WAO) (representative responding on behalf of the national society), launched via internet and circulated for 6 week. As a result, we had 612 members of 144 countries from all six World Health Organization (WHO) global regions who answered the survey. ICD-10 is the most used classification worldwide, but it was not considered appropriate in clinical practice by the majority of participants. The majority indicated the EAACI-WAO classification as being easier and more accurate in the daily practice. They saw the need for a diagnostic system useful for nonallergists and endorsed the possibility of a global, cross-culturally applicable classification system of allergic disorders. This first and most broadly international survey ever conducted of health professionals' attitudes toward allergic disorders classification supports the need to update the current classifications of allergic diseases and can be useful to the WHO in improving the clinical utility of the classification and its global acceptability for the revised ICD-11.

Discovering beaten paths in collaborative ontology-engineering projects using Markov chains.

Biomedical taxonomies, thesauri and ontologies in the form of the International Classification of Diseases as a taxonomy or the National Cancer Institute Thesaurus as an OWL-based ontology, play a critical role in acquiring, representing and processing information about human health. With increasing adoption and relevance, biomedical ontologies have also significantly increased in size. For example, the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, which is currently under active development by the World Health Organization contains nearly 50,000 classes representing a vast variety of different diseases and causes of death. This evolution in terms of size was accompanied by an evolution in the way ontologies are engineered. Because no single individual has the expertise to develop such large-scale ontologies, ontology-engineering projects have evolved from small-scale efforts involving just a few domain experts to large-scale projects that require effective collaboration between dozens or even hundreds of experts, practitioners and other stakeholders. Understanding the way these different stakeholders collaborate will enable us to improve editing environments that support such collaborations. In this paper, we uncover how large ontology-engineering projects, such as the International Classification of Diseases in its 11th revision, unfold by analyzing usage logs of five different biomedical ontology-engineering projects of varying sizes and scopes using Markov chains. We discover intriguing interaction patterns (e.g., which properties users frequently change after specific given ones) that suggest that large collaborative ontology-engineering projects are governed by a few general principles that determine and drive development. From our analysis, we identify commonalities and differences between different projects that have implications for project managers, ontology editors, developers and contributors working on collaborative ontology-engineering projects and tools in the biomedical domain.

How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the WHO ICD-11 development initiative, the Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety explores meta-features of morbidity data sets, such as the optimal number of secondary diagnosis fields. DESIGN: The Health Care Quality Indicators Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development collected Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) information from administrative hospital data of 19-20 countries in 2009 and 2011. We investigated whether three countries that expanded their data systems to include more secondary diagnosis fields showed increased PSI rates compared with six countries that did not. Furthermore, administrative hospital data from six of these countries and two American states, California (2011) and Florida (2010), were analysed for distributions of coded patient safety events across diagnosis fields. RESULTS: Among the participating countries, increasing the number of diagnosis fields was not associated with any overall increase in PSI rates. However, high proportions of PSI-related diagnoses appeared beyond the sixth secondary diagnosis field. The distribution of three PSI-related ICD codes was similar in California and Florida: 89-90% of central venous catheter infections and 97-99% of retained foreign bodies and accidental punctures or lacerations were captured within 15 secondary diagnosis fields. CONCLUSIONS: Six to nine secondary diagnosis fields are inadequate for comparing complication rates using hospital administrative data; at least 15 (and perhaps more with ICD-11) are recommended to fully characterize clinical outcomes. Increasing the number of fields should improve the international and intra-national comparability of data for epidemiologic and health services research, utilization analyses and quality of care assessment.

ICD-11 for quality and safety: overview of the WHO Quality and Safety Topic Advisory Group.

This paper outlines the approach that the WHO's Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC) network is undertaking to create ICD-11. We also outline the more focused work of the Quality and Safety Topic Advisory Group, whose activities include the following: (i) cataloguing existing ICD-9 and ICD-10 quality and safety indicators; (ii) reviewing ICD morbidity coding rules for main condition, diagnosis timing, numbers of diagnosis fields and diagnosis clustering; (iii) substantial restructuring of the health-care related injury concepts coded in the ICD-10 chapters 19/20, (iv) mapping of ICD-11 quality and safety concepts to the information model of the WHO's International Classification for Patient Safety and the AHRQ Common Formats; (v) the review of vertical chapter content in all chapters of the ICD-11 beta version and (vi) downstream field testing of ICD-11 prior to its official 2015 release. The transition from ICD-10 to ICD-11 promises to produce an enhanced classification that will have better potential to capture important concepts relevant to measuring health system safety and quality-an important use case for the classification.

Adoption of the ICD-10 standard in the United States: the time is now.

The United States is facing a revolution in the health care system soon when the present coding system (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) will be replaced with what has for some years been the international standard: International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). The ICD-10 system will provide a tremendous opportunity for better capturing information in the increasingly complex delivery of health care. Although the transition to ICD-10 will undoubtedly result in substantial short-term costs, the long-term benefits make the transition imperative.

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set construction in systemic sclerosis and other rheumatic diseases: a EUSTAR initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To outline rationale and potential strategies for rheumatology experts to be able to develop disease-specific Core Sets under the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). ICF is a universal framework introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO) to describe and quantify the impact and burden on functioning of health conditions associated with impairment/disability. METHODS: A combined effort of the EULAR Scleroderma Clinical Trial and Research and the ICF Research Branch was initiated to develop an ICF language for scleroderma. From our Medline literature review, using the abbreviation and spelled out version of ICF, we assembled approaches and methodological reasoning for steps of core set development. RESULTS: The ICF can be used for patient care and policy-making, as well as the provision of resources, services and funding. The ICF is used on institutional, regional, national and global levels. Several diseases now have ICF Core Sets. Patients with complex rheumatologic diseases will benefit from a disease-specific ICF Core Set and should be included in all stages of development. ICF Core Set development for rheumatic diseases can be conducted from a number of feasible strategies. CONCLUSION: This overview should help to clarify useful processes leading to development of an ICF Core Set, and also provide a platform for expert groups considering such an endeavour.

Variation in academic medical centers' coding practices for postoperative respiratory complications: implications for the AHRQ postoperative respiratory failure Patient Safety Indicator.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) 11 uses International Classification of Disease, 9th Clinical Modification diagnosis code 518.81 ("Acute respiratory failure")-but not the closely related alternative, 518.5 ("Pulmonary insufficiency after trauma and surgery")-to detect cases of postoperative respiratory failure. We sought to determine whether hospitals vary in the use of 518.81 versus 518.5 and whether such variation correlates with coder beliefs. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from July 2009 through June 2010 for UHC (formerly University HealthSystem Consortium)-affiliated centers to assess the use of diagnosis codes 518.81 and 518.5 in PSI 11-eligible cases. We also surveyed coders at these centers to evaluate whether variation in the use of 518.81 versus 518.5 might be linked to coder beliefs. We asked survey respondents which diagnosis they would use for 2 ambiguous cases of postoperative pulmonary complications and how much they agreed with 6 statements about the coding process. RESULTS: UHC-affiliated centers demonstrated wide variation in the use of 518.81 and 518.5, ranging from 0 to 26 cases and 0 to 56 cases/1000 PSI 11-eligible hospitalizations, respectively. Of 56 survey respondents, 64% chose 518.81 and 30% chose 518.5 for a clinical scenario involving postoperative respiratory failure, but these responses were not associated with actual coding of 518.81 or 518.5 at the center level. Sixty-two percent of respondents agreed that they are constrained by the words that physicians use. Their self-reported likelihood of querying physicians to clarify the diagnosis was significantly associated with coding of 518.5 at the center level. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which diagnosis code 518.81 is used relative to 518.5 varies considerably across centers, based on local coding practice, the specific wording of physician documentation, and coder-physician communication. To standardize the coding of postoperative respiratory failure, the 518.81 and 518.5 codes have recently been revised to make the available options clearer and mutually exclusive, which may improve the capacity of PSI 11 to discriminate true differences in quality of care.

A global clinicians' map of mental disorders to improve ICD-11: analysing meta-structure to enhance clinical utility.

Enhancing clinical utility is an emphasis of the World Health Organization's development of the mental and behavioural disorders chapter of the next International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Understanding how clinicians conceptualize the structure of mental disorders can enable a more clinically intuitive classification architecture that will help professionals find the categories they need more efficiently. This study examined clinicians' conceptualizations of the relationships among mental disorders and the dimensions they use in making these judgements. Psychiatrists and psychologists from 64 countries (n = 1,371), participating in English or Spanish, rated the similarity of mental and behavioural disorders presented as paired comparisons. Data were analysed by multidimensional scaling procedures (INDSCAL) and by analyses of consistency. Participants used three distinctive dimensions to evaluate the similarity among disorders: internalizing versus externalizing, developmental versus adult onset, and functional versus organic. Clinicians' conceptual map of mental disorders was rational and highly stable across profession, language, and country income level. The proposed ICD-11 structure is a moderately better fit with clinicians' conceptual model than either ICD-10 or DSM-IV. Clinician judgements can be used to improve clinical utility of the ICD-11 without sacrificing validity based on a scientific approach to enhancing a logically organized classification meta-structure.

Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders.

The somatoform disorders, as currently defined in DSM-IV and ICD-10, have been criticized for their complexity and poor clinical utility. In this paper we consider these criticisms as well as the conceptual question of whether there is sufficient evidence for classifying them as mental and behavioural disorders. The review suggests that, as currently defined, somatoform disorders do not fulfil a recently articulated set of criteria for mental and behavioural disorders. In particular, the disorders are not defined according to positive psychological and behavioural disorders and evidence is sparse to support their classification as different and distinct diagnoses. Any revision of the disorders should not be based on 'medically unexplained' symptoms. Rather, the relevant diagnoses should include a combination of bothersome somatic symptoms with several other psychological features including beliefs about somatic symptoms and evidence of marked concerns about health and illness. Finally, the review presents a set of proposals for the revision of these disorders, by the Somatic Disorders and Dissociative Disorders Working Group of the WHO International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, which attempt to take account of the criticisms and current understanding of somatic experiences.

Minding the body: situating gender identity diagnoses in the ICD-11.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is in the process of revising the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) and ICD-11 has an anticipated publication date of 2015. The Working Group on the Classification of Sexual Disorders and Sexual Health (WGSDSH) is charged with evaluating clinical and research data to inform the revision of diagnostic categories related to sexuality and gender identity that are currently included in the mental and behavioural disorders chapter of ICD-10, and making initial recommendations regarding whether and how these categories should be represented in the ICD-11. The diagnostic classification of disorders related to (trans)gender identity is an area long characterized by lack of knowledge, misconceptions and controversy. The placement of these categories has shifted over time within both the ICD and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), reflecting developing views about what to call these diagnoses, what they mean and where to place them. This article reviews several controversies generated by gender identity diagnoses in recent years. In both the ICD-11 and DSM-5 development processes, one challenge has been to find a balance between concerns related to the stigmatization of mental disorders and the need for diagnostic categories that facilitate access to healthcare. In this connection, this article discusses several human rights issues related to gender identity diagnoses, and explores the question of whether affected populations are best served by placement of these categories within the mental disorders section of the classification. The combined stigmatization of being transgender and of having a mental disorder diagnosis creates a doubly burdensome situation for this group, which may contribute adversely to health status and to the attainment and enjoyment of human rights. The ICD-11 Working Group on the Classification of Sexual Disorders and Sexual Health believes it is now appropriate to abandon a psychopathological model of transgender people based on 1940s conceptualizations of sexual deviance and to move towards a model that is (1) more reflective of current scientific evidence and best practices; (2) more responsive to the needs, experience, and human rights of this vulnerable population; and (3) more supportive of the provision of accessible and high-quality healthcare services.

Classification of mental disorders: the importance of inclusive decision-making.

With DSM-V and ICD-11 on the horizon, now is an excellent time to consider the process leading on to the revision of classificatory systems in psychiatry. The challenges of classification in psychiatry are not inconsiderable. Among these are the controversies about what constitutes a 'disorder' and the appropriate place to draw the line between 'normality' and abnormal psychological status. In the absence of validating biomarkers for most mental disorders, judgements are required about the emphasis to put on available empirical data in the revision of existing classifications. In this review we propose that, given the salience of factors such as culture and contextual social experience to the experience and nature of mental disorders, there is an important need for inclusiveness in the process of leading to the revisions of classifications of mental disorders.

Classification issues and challenges in child and adolescent psychopathology.

The major advances that have taken place over the last half century are reviewed with a focus on those that are particularly important with respect to classification issues in the field of child and adolescent psychopathology. Attention is paid to the conceptual issues in DSM and ICD development and differences between the two classifications. Specific recommendations for changes in ICD-11 are presented and an online supplement provides specific details with respect to diagnostic categories that are in need of further testing.

Steps through the revision process of reproductive health sections of ICD-11.

In 2007, the WHO initiated an organizational structure for the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Effective deployment of ICD-derived tools facilitates the use and collection of health information in a variety of resource settings, promoting quantitatively informed decisions. They also facilitate comparison of disease incidence and outcomes between different countries and different health care systems around the world. The Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR) coordinates the revision of chapters 14 (diseases of the genitourinary system), 15 (pregnancy, childbirth, and puerperium), and 16 (conditions originating in the perinatal period). RHR convened a technical advisory group (TAG), the Genito-Urinary Reproductive Medicine (GURM) TAG, for the ICD revision. The TAG's work reflects the collective understanding of sexual and reproductive health and is now available for review within the ICD-11 revision process.