Portelli R, Brosi J, Collopy B
Australian Council on Healthcare Standards Care Evaluation Program.
Health Inf Manag. 1997;27(4):168-70. doi: 10.1177/183335839802700405.
In early 1997, the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) Care Evaluation Program (CEP) collaborated with the National Centre for Classification in Health (NCCH) to determine the feasibility of matching ICD-9-CM codes with a selected number of clinical indicators developed by CEP. While the results of this activity were encouraging, CEP is hesitant in advocating the use of ICD-9-CM as the complete answer to the data collection 'burden' experienced by health care organisations collecting clinical indicator data. CEP is concerned that obtaining clinical indicator data through ICD-9-CM coding alone may limit clinician participation in quality activities, narrow the focus of performance monitoring to one department, potentially compromise the intent of the indicators, and encourage a culture of 'near enough is good enough'. This paper examines the limitations of ICD-9-CM coding as the sole means of extracting clinical indicator data.
1997年初,澳大利亚医疗保健标准委员会(ACHS)护理评估项目(CEP)与国家卫生分类中心(NCCH)合作,以确定将ICD - 9 - CM编码与CEP制定的选定数量临床指标进行匹配的可行性。虽然这项活动的结果令人鼓舞,但CEP对于倡导将ICD - 9 - CM作为医疗保健组织收集临床指标数据时应对数据收集“负担”的完整解决方案持谨慎态度。CEP担心仅通过ICD - 9 - CM编码获取临床指标数据可能会限制临床医生参与质量活动,将绩效监测的重点缩小到一个部门,可能损害指标的意图,并助长“差不多就行”的文化。本文探讨了将ICD - 9 - CM编码作为提取临床指标数据的唯一手段的局限性。