Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15778795

A methodological framework for the conversion of procedure classifications.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: During the adaptation of the Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups for Germany mapping tables between procedure classifications were needed. The mapping between the German OPS-301 2.0 and the Australian MBS-Extended should transfer the Australian expertise by keeping a well-established terminology system. METHODS: A methodological framework for the development of mapping tables had been developed based on the model for representation of semantics provided by the European Committee of Standardization. Two approaches were used; the concept-based approach from OPS-301 2.0 to MBS-Extended and the class-based approach the other way round. A conversion had to be identified between 23,160 classes of the OPS-301 2.0 and 6,328 classes of the MBS-Extended in two asymmetrical mapping tables. RESULTS: The class-based approach leads to a low number of 6,980 conversions but misses 82.6% of the classes of the OPS-301. Because of domain incongruencies and missing domain completeness of the OPS-301 2.0 for non-operative procedures 15.7% of the MBS-Extended-classes remain without conversion. The concept-based approach leads to a slightly higher mean number of conversions per class of 1.35 in comparison to 1.31 with the class-based approach. But it was possible to find conversions for 99.5% of the OPS-301 2.0-classes. 16.3% of the DRG-relevant classes of the MBS-Extended were missed. CONCLUSIONS: The class-based approach was not useful, because the MBS-Extended is significantly broader than the OPS-301 2.0. An external validation study for the direction OPS-301 2.0 to MBS-Extended revealed a satisfactory quality. The empirical and the reference-based approach are important alternatives to the ones used in this project. There are clear criteria about the appropriate application area for the methodological approaches presented here.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Stausberg, B Dahmen, S Drösler. 2005. A methodological framework for the conversion of procedure classifications.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15778795/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10.

OBJECTIVE: Reliability of diagnoses coding is essential for the use of routine data in a national health care system. The present investigation compares reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 between three groups of coding subjects. METHOD: One hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists, 27 medical managers from hospitals 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists 12 discharge letters. Agreement in principal diagnosis was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and the fraction of coincidences over the number of pairs, agreement for the full set of diagnoses with a previously developed measure p(om). RESULTS: Kappa values were fair (managers) or moderate (coders) for terminal codes with 0.27 and 0.42 (agreement 29.2% versus 46.8%), substantial for the chapter level with 0.71 and 0.72 (agreement 78.3% versus 80.8%). p(om) was lower for the full set of diagnoses than for principal diagnoses, for example in case of managers with 0.21 versus 0.29 for terminal codes. Best results were achieved by students coding diagnoses lists. In summary, the results are remarkably lower than in earlier publications. CONCLUSION: The refinement of the ICD-10 accompanied by innumerous coding rules has established a complex environment that leads to significant uncertainties even for experts. Use of coded data for quality management, health care financing, and health care policy requires a remarkable simplification of ICD-10 to receive a valid image of health care reality.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗