Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data: Report from an international consortium

Carolyn De Coster, Hude Quan, Alan Finlayson, Min Gao, Patricia Halfon, Karin H. Humphries, Helen Johansen, Lisa M. Lix, Jean Christophe Luthi, Jin Ma, Patrick S Romano, Leslie Roos, Vijaya Sundararajan, Jack V. Tu, Greg Webster, William A. Ghali

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

98 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Health administrative data are frequently used for health services and population health research. Comparative research using these data has been facilitated by the use of a standard system for coding diagnoses, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Research using the data must deal with data quality and validity limitations which arise because the data are not created for research purposes. This paper presents a list of high-priority methodological areas for researchers using health administrative data. Methods: A group of researchers and users of health administrative data from Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Australia, China and the United Kingdom came together in June 2005 in Banff, Canada to discuss and identify high-priority methodological research areas. The generation of ideas for research focussed not only on matters relating to the use of administrative data in health services and population health research, but also on the challenges created in transitioning from ICD-9 to ICD-10. After the brain-storming session, voting took place to rank-order the suggested projects. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each project from 1 (low priority) to 10 (high priority). Average ranks were computed to prioritise the projects. Results: Thirteen potential areas of research were identified, some of which represented preparatory work rather than research per se. The three most highly ranked priorities were the documentation of data fields in each country's hospital administrative data (average score 8.4), the translation of patient safety indicators from ICD-9 to ICD-10 (average score 8.0), and the development and validation of algorithms to verify the logic and internal consistency of coding in hospital abstract data (average score 7.0). Conclusion: The group discussions resulted in a list of expert views on critical international priorities for future methodological research relating to health administrative data. The consortium's members welcome contacts from investigators involved in research using health administrative data, especially in cross-jurisdictional collaborative studies or in studies that illustrate the application of ICD-10.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number77
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 15 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

International Classification of Diseases
Research
Health
Research Personnel
Health Services
Canada
Politics
Patient Safety
Switzerland
Documentation
Population
China

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data : Report from an international consortium. / De Coster, Carolyn; Quan, Hude; Finlayson, Alan; Gao, Min; Halfon, Patricia; Humphries, Karin H.; Johansen, Helen; Lix, Lisa M.; Luthi, Jean Christophe; Ma, Jin; Romano, Patrick S; Roos, Leslie; Sundararajan, Vijaya; Tu, Jack V.; Webster, Greg; Ghali, William A.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 6, 77, 15.06.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

De Coster, C, Quan, H, Finlayson, A, Gao, M, Halfon, P, Humphries, KH, Johansen, H, Lix, LM, Luthi, JC, Ma, J, Romano, PS, Roos, L, Sundararajan, V, Tu, JV, Webster, G & Ghali, WA 2006, 'Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data: Report from an international consortium', BMC Health Services Research, vol. 6, 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-77
De Coster, Carolyn ; Quan, Hude ; Finlayson, Alan ; Gao, Min ; Halfon, Patricia ; Humphries, Karin H. ; Johansen, Helen ; Lix, Lisa M. ; Luthi, Jean Christophe ; Ma, Jin ; Romano, Patrick S ; Roos, Leslie ; Sundararajan, Vijaya ; Tu, Jack V. ; Webster, Greg ; Ghali, William A. / Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data : Report from an international consortium. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2006 ; Vol. 6.
@article{512aef149cdc4e54925d5e52ceb32557,
title = "Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data: Report from an international consortium",
abstract = "Background: Health administrative data are frequently used for health services and population health research. Comparative research using these data has been facilitated by the use of a standard system for coding diagnoses, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Research using the data must deal with data quality and validity limitations which arise because the data are not created for research purposes. This paper presents a list of high-priority methodological areas for researchers using health administrative data. Methods: A group of researchers and users of health administrative data from Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Australia, China and the United Kingdom came together in June 2005 in Banff, Canada to discuss and identify high-priority methodological research areas. The generation of ideas for research focussed not only on matters relating to the use of administrative data in health services and population health research, but also on the challenges created in transitioning from ICD-9 to ICD-10. After the brain-storming session, voting took place to rank-order the suggested projects. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each project from 1 (low priority) to 10 (high priority). Average ranks were computed to prioritise the projects. Results: Thirteen potential areas of research were identified, some of which represented preparatory work rather than research per se. The three most highly ranked priorities were the documentation of data fields in each country's hospital administrative data (average score 8.4), the translation of patient safety indicators from ICD-9 to ICD-10 (average score 8.0), and the development and validation of algorithms to verify the logic and internal consistency of coding in hospital abstract data (average score 7.0). Conclusion: The group discussions resulted in a list of expert views on critical international priorities for future methodological research relating to health administrative data. The consortium's members welcome contacts from investigators involved in research using health administrative data, especially in cross-jurisdictional collaborative studies or in studies that illustrate the application of ICD-10.",
author = "{De Coster}, Carolyn and Hude Quan and Alan Finlayson and Min Gao and Patricia Halfon and Humphries, {Karin H.} and Helen Johansen and Lix, {Lisa M.} and Luthi, {Jean Christophe} and Jin Ma and Romano, {Patrick S} and Leslie Roos and Vijaya Sundararajan and Tu, {Jack V.} and Greg Webster and Ghali, {William A.}",
year = "2006",
month = "6",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6963-6-77",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data

T2 - Report from an international consortium

AU - De Coster, Carolyn

AU - Quan, Hude

AU - Finlayson, Alan

AU - Gao, Min

AU - Halfon, Patricia

AU - Humphries, Karin H.

AU - Johansen, Helen

AU - Lix, Lisa M.

AU - Luthi, Jean Christophe

AU - Ma, Jin

AU - Romano, Patrick S

AU - Roos, Leslie

AU - Sundararajan, Vijaya

AU - Tu, Jack V.

AU - Webster, Greg

AU - Ghali, William A.

PY - 2006/6/15

Y1 - 2006/6/15

N2 - Background: Health administrative data are frequently used for health services and population health research. Comparative research using these data has been facilitated by the use of a standard system for coding diagnoses, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Research using the data must deal with data quality and validity limitations which arise because the data are not created for research purposes. This paper presents a list of high-priority methodological areas for researchers using health administrative data. Methods: A group of researchers and users of health administrative data from Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Australia, China and the United Kingdom came together in June 2005 in Banff, Canada to discuss and identify high-priority methodological research areas. The generation of ideas for research focussed not only on matters relating to the use of administrative data in health services and population health research, but also on the challenges created in transitioning from ICD-9 to ICD-10. After the brain-storming session, voting took place to rank-order the suggested projects. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each project from 1 (low priority) to 10 (high priority). Average ranks were computed to prioritise the projects. Results: Thirteen potential areas of research were identified, some of which represented preparatory work rather than research per se. The three most highly ranked priorities were the documentation of data fields in each country's hospital administrative data (average score 8.4), the translation of patient safety indicators from ICD-9 to ICD-10 (average score 8.0), and the development and validation of algorithms to verify the logic and internal consistency of coding in hospital abstract data (average score 7.0). Conclusion: The group discussions resulted in a list of expert views on critical international priorities for future methodological research relating to health administrative data. The consortium's members welcome contacts from investigators involved in research using health administrative data, especially in cross-jurisdictional collaborative studies or in studies that illustrate the application of ICD-10.

AB - Background: Health administrative data are frequently used for health services and population health research. Comparative research using these data has been facilitated by the use of a standard system for coding diagnoses, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Research using the data must deal with data quality and validity limitations which arise because the data are not created for research purposes. This paper presents a list of high-priority methodological areas for researchers using health administrative data. Methods: A group of researchers and users of health administrative data from Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Australia, China and the United Kingdom came together in June 2005 in Banff, Canada to discuss and identify high-priority methodological research areas. The generation of ideas for research focussed not only on matters relating to the use of administrative data in health services and population health research, but also on the challenges created in transitioning from ICD-9 to ICD-10. After the brain-storming session, voting took place to rank-order the suggested projects. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each project from 1 (low priority) to 10 (high priority). Average ranks were computed to prioritise the projects. Results: Thirteen potential areas of research were identified, some of which represented preparatory work rather than research per se. The three most highly ranked priorities were the documentation of data fields in each country's hospital administrative data (average score 8.4), the translation of patient safety indicators from ICD-9 to ICD-10 (average score 8.0), and the development and validation of algorithms to verify the logic and internal consistency of coding in hospital abstract data (average score 7.0). Conclusion: The group discussions resulted in a list of expert views on critical international priorities for future methodological research relating to health administrative data. The consortium's members welcome contacts from investigators involved in research using health administrative data, especially in cross-jurisdictional collaborative studies or in studies that illustrate the application of ICD-10.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746217456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33746217456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6963-6-77

DO - 10.1186/1472-6963-6-77

M3 - Article

C2 - 16776836

AN - SCOPUS:33746217456

VL - 6

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

M1 - 77

ER -