比较由医师和临床编码员与自动化方法生成的 ICD-9-CM 到 ICD-10-CM 转换工具。
Comparison of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM Crosswalks Derived by Physician and Clinical Coder vs. Automated Methods.
出版信息
Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2021 Mar 15;18(Spring):1e. eCollection 2021 Spring.
PURPOSE
To evaluate whether automated methods are sufficient for deriving ICD-10-CM algorithms by comparing ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalks from general equivalence mappings (GEMs) with physician/clinical coder-derived crosswalks.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Forward mapping was used to derive ICD-10-CM crosswalks for 10 conditions. As a sensitivity analysis, forward-backward mapping (FBM) was also conducted for three clinical conditions. The physician/coder independently developed crosswalks for the same conditions. Differences between the crosswalks were summarized using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (JSC).
RESULTS
Physician/coder crosswalks were typically far more inclusive than GEMs crosswalks. Crosswalks for peripheral artery disease were most dissimilar (JSC: 0.06), while crosswalks for mild cognitive impairment (JSC: 1) and congestive heart failure (0.85) were most similar. FBM added ICD-10-CM codes for all three conditions but did not consistently increase similarity between crosswalks.
CONCLUSION
The GEMs and physician/coder algorithms rarely aligned fully; human review is still required for ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalk development.
目的
通过比较通用等价映射（GEM）和医生/临床编码员生成的映射与 ICD-10-CM 之间的交叉映射，评估自动化方法是否足以推导出 ICD-10-CM 算法。
方法
使用正向映射为 10 种情况推导出 ICD-10-CM 交叉映射。作为敏感性分析，还对三种临床情况进行了正向-反向映射（FBM）。医生/编码员为相同的条件独立开发了交叉映射。使用杰卡德相似系数（JSC）总结交叉映射之间的差异。
结果
医生/编码员的交叉映射通常比 GEM 交叉映射更全面。外周动脉疾病的交叉映射最不相似（JSC：0.06），而轻度认知障碍（JSC：1）和充血性心力衰竭（0.85）的交叉映射最相似。FBM 为所有三种情况添加了 ICD-10-CM 代码，但并未始终增加交叉映射之间的相似性。
结论
GEM 和医生/编码员算法很少完全一致；ICD-9-CM 到 ICD-10-CM 交叉映射的开发仍需要人工审查。
Zotero 插件