Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9062882

Coding medical concepts: a controlled experiment with a computerized coding tool.

J H Hohnloser·F Pürner·P Kadlec
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In medicine there is a growing need to encode medical concepts with the available standard coding systems. The coding process can be time intensive and may significantly add to daily paperwork. We have developed a generic computerized encoding tool--the PADS (patient archiving and documentation system) encoder--to ensure rapid, correct and complete coding of diagnoses in daily routine. The tool is integrated into an electronic patient record system and takes full advantage of the user friendly Macintosh interface. The tool was tested in a controlled experiment by 18 clinicians who encoded a total of 666 medical concepts in each protocol (study protocol versus control). We present data demonstrating that a computerized coding tool can produce more complete data of higher quality and save time compared with the traditional approach: (a) the number of correctly encoded medical concepts was higher (99.55% versus 86.1%); (b) coding errors were lower (0% versus 10.81%); (c) more modifier codes were encoded correctly (increase by up to 43%); (d) fewer coding errors were made (decrease by up to 43%); (e) the overall rate of correctly encoded and complete main and modifier codes was increased by 31.27% (97.29% versus 66.02%); and (f) coding time was reduced by 50%.

Explore related subjects

Abstracting and IndexingDocumentationMathematical ComputingMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedQuality ControlStatistics, NonparametricTime FactorsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J H Hohnloser, F Pürner, P Kadlec. Coding medical concepts: a controlled experiment with a computerized coding tool.. https://doi.org/10.3109/14639239609025357

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

A comparative evaluation of full-text, concept-based, and context-sensitive search.

OBJECTIVES: Study comparatively (1) concept-based search, using documents pre-indexed by a conceptual hierarchy; (2) context-sensitive search, using structured, labeled documents; and (3) traditional full-text search. Hypotheses were: (1) more contexts lead to better retrieval accuracy; and (2) adding concept-based search to the other searches would improve upon their baseline performances. DESIGN: Use our Vaidurya architecture, for search and retrieval evaluation, of structured documents classified by a conceptual hierarchy, on a clinical guidelines test collection. MEASUREMENTS: Precision computed at different levels of recall to assess the contribution of the retrieval methods. Comparisons of precisions done with recall set at 0.5, using t-tests. RESULTS: Performance increased monotonically with the number of query context elements. Adding context-sensitive elements, mean improvement was 11.1% at recall 0.5. With three contexts, mean query precision was 42% +/- 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31% to 53%); with two contexts, 32% +/- 13% (95% CI, 27% to 38%); and one context, 20% +/- 9% (95% CI, 15% to 24%). Adding context-based queries to full-text queries monotonically improved precision beyond the 0.4 level of recall. Mean improvement was 4.5% at recall 0.5. Adding concept-based search to full-text search improved precision to 19.4% at recall 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated usefulness of concept-based and context-sensitive queries for enhancing the precision of retrieval from a digital library of semi-structured clinical guideline documents. Concept-based searches outperformed free-text queries, especially when baseline precision was low. In general, the more ontological elements used in the query, the greater the resulting precision.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2007

Improvements to the Red List Index.

The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings. Two additional advantages of the revisions are that assessment errors are not propagated through time, and the overall level extinction risk can be determined as well as trends in this over time.

Abstracting and Indexing↗