Cargando…

Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts

BACKGROUND: The International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) standard aims to facilitate simultaneous and longitudinal comparisons of clinical primary care practice within and across country borders; it is also used for administrative purposes. This study evaluates the use of the original IC...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Botsis, Taxiarchis, Bassøe, Carl-Fredrik, Hartvigsen, Gunnar
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20181271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-10-11
_version_ 1782179643699232768
author Botsis, Taxiarchis
Bassøe, Carl-Fredrik
Hartvigsen, Gunnar
author_facet Botsis, Taxiarchis
Bassøe, Carl-Fredrik
Hartvigsen, Gunnar
author_sort Botsis, Taxiarchis
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) standard aims to facilitate simultaneous and longitudinal comparisons of clinical primary care practice within and across country borders; it is also used for administrative purposes. This study evaluates the use of the original ICPC-1 and the more complete ICPC-2 Norwegian versions in electronic patient records. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of approximately 1.5 million ICPC codes and diagnoses that were collected over a 16-year period at 12 primary care sites in Norway. In the first phase of this period (transition phase, 1992-1999) physicians were allowed to not use an ICPC code in their practice while in the second phase (regular phase, 2000-2008) the use of an ICPC code was mandatory. The ICPC codes and diagnoses defined a problem event for each patient in the PROblem-oriented electronic MEDical record (PROMED). The main outcome measure of our analysis was the percentage of problem events in PROMEDs with inappropriate (or missing) ICPC codes and of diagnoses that did not map the latest ICPC-2 classification. Specific problem areas (pneumonia, anaemia, tonsillitis and diabetes) were examined in the same context. RESULTS: Codes were missing in 6.2% of the problem events; incorrect codes were observed in 4.0% of the problem events and text mismatch between the diagnoses and the expected ICPC-2 diagnoses text in 53.8% of the problem events. Missing codes were observed only during the transition phase while incorrect and inappropriate codes were used all over the 16-year period. The physicians created diagnoses that did not exist in ICPC. These 'new' diagnoses were used with varying frequency; many of them were used only once. Inappropriate ICPC-2 codes were also observed in the selected problem areas and for both phases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results strongly suggest that physicians did not adhere to the ICPC standard due to its incompleteness, i.e. lack of many clinically important diagnoses. This indicates that ICPC is inappropriate for the classification of problem events and the clinical practice in primary care.
format Text
id pubmed-2848129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28481292010-04-01 Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts Botsis, Taxiarchis Bassøe, Carl-Fredrik Hartvigsen, Gunnar BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: The International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) standard aims to facilitate simultaneous and longitudinal comparisons of clinical primary care practice within and across country borders; it is also used for administrative purposes. This study evaluates the use of the original ICPC-1 and the more complete ICPC-2 Norwegian versions in electronic patient records. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of approximately 1.5 million ICPC codes and diagnoses that were collected over a 16-year period at 12 primary care sites in Norway. In the first phase of this period (transition phase, 1992-1999) physicians were allowed to not use an ICPC code in their practice while in the second phase (regular phase, 2000-2008) the use of an ICPC code was mandatory. The ICPC codes and diagnoses defined a problem event for each patient in the PROblem-oriented electronic MEDical record (PROMED). The main outcome measure of our analysis was the percentage of problem events in PROMEDs with inappropriate (or missing) ICPC codes and of diagnoses that did not map the latest ICPC-2 classification. Specific problem areas (pneumonia, anaemia, tonsillitis and diabetes) were examined in the same context. RESULTS: Codes were missing in 6.2% of the problem events; incorrect codes were observed in 4.0% of the problem events and text mismatch between the diagnoses and the expected ICPC-2 diagnoses text in 53.8% of the problem events. Missing codes were observed only during the transition phase while incorrect and inappropriate codes were used all over the 16-year period. The physicians created diagnoses that did not exist in ICPC. These 'new' diagnoses were used with varying frequency; many of them were used only once. Inappropriate ICPC-2 codes were also observed in the selected problem areas and for both phases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results strongly suggest that physicians did not adhere to the ICPC standard due to its incompleteness, i.e. lack of many clinically important diagnoses. This indicates that ICPC is inappropriate for the classification of problem events and the clinical practice in primary care. BioMed Central 2010-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC2848129/ /pubmed/20181271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-10-11 Text en Copyright ©2010 Botsis et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Botsis, Taxiarchis
Bassøe, Carl-Fredrik
Hartvigsen, Gunnar
Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts
title Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts
title_full Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts
title_fullStr Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts
title_full_unstemmed Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts
title_short Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts
title_sort sixteen years of icpc use in norwegian primary care: looking through the facts
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20181271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-10-11
work_keys_str_mv AT botsistaxiarchis sixteenyearsoficpcuseinnorwegianprimarycarelookingthroughthefacts
AT bassøecarlfredrik sixteenyearsoficpcuseinnorwegianprimarycarelookingthroughthefacts
AT hartvigsengunnar sixteenyearsoficpcuseinnorwegianprimarycarelookingthroughthefacts