The use of ICD codes to identify IBD subtypes and phenotypes of the Montreal classification in the Swedish National Patient Register.

Introduction: Whether data on International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-codes from the Swedish National Patient Register (NPR) correctly correspond to subtypes of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and phenotypes of the Montreal classification scheme among patients with prevalent disease is unknown.Materials and methods: We obtained information on IBD subtypes and phenotypes from the medical records of 1403 patients with known IBD who underwent biological treatment at ten Swedish hospitals and retrieved information on their IBD-associated diagnostic codes from the NPR. We used previously described algorithms to define IBD subtypes and phenotypes. Finally, we compared these register-generated subtypes and phenotypes with the corresponding information from the medical records and calculated positive predictive values (PPV) with 95% confidence intervals.Results: Among patients with clinically confirmed disease and diagnostic listings of IBD in the NPR (N = 1401), the PPV was 97 (96-99)% for Crohn's disease, 98 (97-100)% for ulcerative colitis, and 8 (4-11)% for IBD-unclassified. The overall accuracy for age at diagnosis was 95% (when defined as A1, A2, or A3). Examining the validity of codes representing disease phenotype, the PPV was 36 (32-40)% for colonic Crohn's disease (L2), 61 (56-65)% for non-stricturing/non-penetrating Crohn's disease behaviour (B1) and 83 (78-87)% for perianal disease. Correspondingly, the PPV was 80 (71-89)% for proctitis (E1)/left-sided colitis (E2) in ulcerative colitis.Conclusions: Among people with known IBD, the NPR is a reliable source of data to classify most subtypes of prevalent IBD, even though misclassification commonly occurred in Crohn's disease location and behaviour and also among IBD-unclassified patients.

Severe-to-profound hearing impairment: demographic data, gender differences and benefits of audiological rehabilitation.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify and report demographic data of patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss, assess participation in audiological rehabilitation and analyze the benefits of various rehabilitation methods.Materials and methods: Data on 4286 patients with severe-to-profound hearing impairments registered in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology over a period from 2006-2015 were studied. Demographic data, gender differences, audiological rehabilitation and benefits of the rehabilitation were analyzed.Results: Group rehabilitation and visits to a hearing rehabilitation educator provided the most benefits in audiological rehabilitation. Only 40.5% of the patients received extended audiological rehabilitation, of which 54.5% were women. A total of 9.5% of patients participated in group rehabilitation, with 59.5% being women. Women also visited technicians, welfare officers, hearing rehabilitation educators, psychologists and physicians and received communication rehabilitation in a group and fit with cochlea implants significantly more often than did men.Conclusions: The study emphasizes the importance of being given the opportunity to participate in group rehabilitation and meet a hearing rehabilitation educator to experience the benefits of hearing rehabilitation. There is a need to offer extended audiological rehabilitation, especially in terms of gender differences, to provide the same impact for women and men.Implications for RehabilitationSignificantly more women than men with severe-to-profound hearing impairment receive audiological rehabilitation.Hearing impairment appears to have a significantly more negative impact on women's quality of life than men's.It is important to offer extended audiological rehabilitation to all patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss to obtain an equal hearing health care regardless of gender.

Rehabilitation of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing impairment - why not cochlear implants?

Background: In Sweden, an estimated prevalence of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss is 0.2%, which corresponds to roughly 20,000. We know little about the use of cochlear implants (CIs) in this population and why not most of them are not offered CI. Objectives: To investigate the reasons for no rehabilitation with CI among this patient group. Materials and methods: Data were collected from 1076 patients in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology. A baseline questionnaire and the reason for no CI, was evaluated. Results: Only 14.5% of the patients started a CI investigation, and 8.5% were rehabilitated with CI. Significantly more women (56.5%) than men received CI. The most common reasons for not receiving CI, were hearing reason (30.5%), indicating satisfaction with technical equipment, and unknown reason (25%). The oldest patient group (81-100 years old) had the highest risk for unknown reasons. Patients receiving extended audiological rehabilitation (53.5%) had a significantly lower risk for unknown reasons. Conclusions: It is worrying that the oldest patient group (81-100 years old) seemed to have fewer chances to start a CI investigation. An extended audiological rehabilitation increased the chances that professionals would discuss CI. Significance: This study shows that surprisingly few patients are offered CI despite their severe-to-profound hearing loss.