Clinical Toxicology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's Health Partners, St Thomas' Hospital, 3rd Floor, Block C, South Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, Stamford St, Lambeth, London, SE1 9NH, UK.
J Med Toxicol. 2019 Apr;15(2):112-120. doi: 10.1007/s13181-018-0687-z. Epub 2019 Jan 2.
Understanding emergency department and healthcare utilisation related to acute recreational drug toxicity (ARDT) generally relies on nationally collated data based on ICD-10 coding. Previous UK studies have shown this poorly captures the true ARDT burden. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this is also the case elsewhere in Europe.
The Euro-DEN Plus database was interrogated for all presentations 1st July to 31st December 2015 to the EDs in (i) St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK; (ii) Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; and (iii) Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. Comparison of the drug(s) involved in the presentation with the ICD-10 codes applied to those presentations was undertaken to determine the proportion of cases where the primary/subsequent ICD-10 code(s) were ARDT related.
There were 619 presentations over the 6-month period. Two hundred thirteen (34.4%) of those presentations were coded; 89.7% had a primary/subsequent ARDT-related ICD-10 code. One hundred percent of presentations to Roskilde had a primary ARDT ICD-10 code compared to 9.6% and 18.9% in Basel and London respectively. Overall, only 8.5% of the coded presentations had codes that captured all of the drugs that were involved in that presentation.
While the majority of primary and secondary codes applied related to ARDT, often they did not identify the actual drug(s) involved. This was due to both inconsistencies in the ICD-10 codes applied and lack of ICD-10 codes for the drugs/NPS. Further work and education is needed to improve consistency of use of current ICD-10 and future potential ICD-11 coding systems.
了解与急性娱乐性药物毒性(ARDT)相关的急诊科和医疗保健利用情况通常依赖于基于 ICD-10 编码的全国性汇总数据。以前的英国研究表明,这种方法无法准确捕捉真实的 ARDT 负担。本研究旨在调查这在欧洲其他地方是否也是如此。
对 2015 年 7 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间伦敦圣托马斯医院、瑞士巴塞尔大学医院和丹麦罗斯基勒大学医院急诊科的所有就诊情况进行了 Euro-DEN Plus 数据库查询。对就诊中涉及的药物与应用于这些就诊的 ICD-10 编码进行了比较,以确定主要/次要 ICD-10 编码与 ARDT 相关的病例比例。
在 6 个月期间共出现 619 次就诊。其中 213 次就诊被编码;89.7%的就诊有主要/次要 ARDT 相关 ICD-10 编码。与巴塞尔(9.6%)和伦敦(18.9%)相比,罗斯基勒的所有就诊均有主要的 ARDT ICD-10 编码。总体而言,只有 8.5%的编码就诊有能够捕捉到所有涉及该就诊的药物的编码。
尽管应用的大多数主要和次要编码与 ARDT 相关,但它们通常并未识别出实际涉及的药物。这是由于应用的 ICD-10 编码不一致以及缺乏药物/NPS 的 ICD-10 编码所致。需要进一步的工作和教育来提高当前 ICD-10 和未来潜在 ICD-11 编码系统的使用一致性。