Bouchet C, Empereur F, Kohler F
Laboratoire SPIEAO, Faculty of Medicine, Nancy, France.
Proc AMIA Symp. 1998:185-9.
Computerized tools may be useful in speeding up and facilitating the laborious task of coding patient information. This paper describes a method of objectively evaluating their efficiency.
38 study subjects were randomly assigned to a manual coding group or an automated coding group, with stratification according to two variables (used to coding yes/no, physician yes/no). Subjects then coded the same standardized set of diagnoses in a limited time. The numbers of exact codes retrieved were compared using a global analysis of variance model.
The two groups were not significantly different with regard to the number of physicians (p = 0.74) and the number of usual coders (p = 0.52) they included. Significantly more exact codes were achieved in the group using automated coding than among the manual group (p = 0.04). Physicians were significantly more efficient at coding than non-physicians (p = 0.02).
This study describes an objective means of evaluating the performance of an automated coding tool. It shows that better results were achieved with the computerised compared to the manual method, even when the superior abilities of physicians were taken into account.
计算机化工具可能有助于加快并简化对患者信息进行编码这项艰巨的任务。本文描述了一种客观评估其效率的方法。
38名研究对象被随机分配到手工编码组或自动编码组，并根据两个变量（是否用于编码、是否为医生）进行分层。然后，研究对象在限定时间内对同一组标准化诊断进行编码。使用方差分析模型对检索到的准确编码数量进行比较。
两组在医生数量（p = 0.74）和常用编码人员数量（p = 0.52）方面无显著差异。使用自动编码的组获得的准确编码明显多于手工编码组（p = 0.04）。医生在编码方面的效率明显高于非医生（p = 0.02）。
本研究描述了一种评估自动编码工具性能的客观方法。研究表明，即使考虑到医生的卓越能力，与手工方法相比，计算机化方法仍能取得更好的结果。
