Fortune Nicola, Hardiker Nicholas R, Strudwick Gillian
National Centre for Classification in Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, Australia.
School of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work and Social Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Jul 1;24(4):722-728. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw173.
The International Classification of Health Interventions, currently being developed, seeks to span all sectors of the health system. Our objective was to test the draft classification's coverage of interventions commonly delivered by nurses, and propose changes to improve the utility and reliability of the classification for aggregating and analyzing data on nursing interventions.
A 2-phase content mapping method was used: (1) three coders independently applied the classification to a dataset comprising 100 high-frequency nursing interventions; (2) the coders reached consensus for each intervention and identified reasons for initial discrepancies.
A consensus code was found for 80 of the 100 source terms; for 34% of these, the code was semantically equivalent to the source term, and for 64% it was broader. Issues that contributed to discrepancies in Phase 1 coding results included concepts in source terms not captured by the classification, ambiguities in source terms, and uncertainty of semantic matching between "action" concepts in source terms and classification codes.
While the classification generally provides good coverage of nursing interventions, there remain a number of content gaps and granularity issues. Further development of definitions and coding guidance is needed to ensure consistency of application.
This study has produced a set of proposals concerning changes needed to improve the classification. The novel method described here will inform future health terminology and classification content coverage studies.
目前正在制定的《国际卫生干预分类》旨在涵盖卫生系统的所有部门。我们的目的是测试该分类草案对护士通常提供的干预措施的覆盖范围,并提出改进建议,以提高该分类在汇总和分析护理干预数据方面的实用性和可靠性。
采用两阶段内容映射方法:(1)三名编码人员独立将该分类应用于一个包含100项高频护理干预措施的数据集;(2)编码人员就每项干预措施达成共识,并确定初始差异的原因。
在100个源术语中,有80个找到了共识代码;其中34%的代码在语义上与源术语等价,64%的代码更宽泛。导致第一阶段编码结果出现差异的问题包括分类未涵盖的源术语中的概念、源术语中的歧义以及源术语中的“行动”概念与分类代码之间语义匹配的不确定性。
虽然该分类总体上对护理干预措施有较好的覆盖,但仍存在一些内容空白和粒度问题。需要进一步制定定义和编码指南,以确保应用的一致性。
本研究提出了一系列关于改进该分类所需更改的建议。这里描述的新方法将为未来的卫生术语和分类内容覆盖研究提供参考。