急诊电子数据中疾病国际分类（ICD）损伤外部原因编码的完整性和准确性。
Completeness and accuracy of International Classification of Disease (ICD) external cause of injury codes in emergency department electronic data.
作者信息
Hunt P R, Hackman H, Berenholz G, McKeown L, Davis L, Ozonoff V
机构信息
Occupational Health Surveillance Program, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA 02108, USA.
出版信息
Inj Prev. 2007 Dec;13(6):422-5. doi: 10.1136/ip.2007.015859.
The accuracy of external cause of injury codes (E codes) for work-related and non-work-related injuries in Massachusetts emergency department data were evaluated. Medical records were reviewed and coded by a nosologist with expertise in E coding for a stratified random sample of 1000 probable work-related (PWR) and 250 probable non-work-related (PNWR) cases. Cause of injury E codes were present for 98% of reviewed cases and accurate for 65% of PWR cases and 57% of PNWR cases. Place of occurrence E codes were present in less than 30% of cases. Broad cause of injury categories were accurate for about 85% of cases. Non-specific categories (not elsewhere classified, not specified) accounted for 34% of broad category misclassifications. Among specified causes, machinery injuries were misclassified most often (39/60, 65%), predominantly as cut/pierce or struck by/against. E codes reliably identify the broad mechanism of injury, but inaccuracies and incompleteness suggest areas for training of hospital admissions staff, providers, and coders.
对马萨诸塞州急诊科数据中与工作相关和非工作相关损伤的外部损伤原因编码（E编码）的准确性进行了评估。由一名在E编码方面具有专业知识的疾病分类学家对1000例可能与工作相关（PWR）和250例可能与工作无关（PNWR）病例的分层随机样本的病历进行审查和编码。98%的审查病例有损伤原因E编码，其中65%的PWR病例和57%的PNWR病例编码准确。不到30%的病例有发生地点E编码。大约85%的病例损伤大致原因类别编码准确。非特定类别（未在其他地方分类、未指明）占大致类别错误分类的34%。在特定原因中，机械损伤的错误分类最为常见（39/60，65%），主要被误分类为切割/刺穿或被撞击。E编码能够可靠地识别损伤的大致机制，但不准确和不完整表明医院入院工作人员、医疗服务提供者和编码人员需要培训。
Zotero 插件