Cargando…

The use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic coding has several potential benefits, including improving the feasibility of data collection for research and clinical audits and providing a common language to improve interdisciplinary collaboration. The primary aim of this study was to determine the views and perspectives...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Testern, Cecilie D, Hestbæk, Lise, French, Simon D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4333265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25699173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-015-0051-1
_version_ 1782358005102149632
author Testern, Cecilie D
Hestbæk, Lise
French, Simon D
author_facet Testern, Cecilie D
Hestbæk, Lise
French, Simon D
author_sort Testern, Cecilie D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Diagnostic coding has several potential benefits, including improving the feasibility of data collection for research and clinical audits and providing a common language to improve interdisciplinary collaboration. The primary aim of this study was to determine the views and perspectives of chiropractors about diagnostic coding and explore the use of it in a chiropractic setting. A secondary aim was to compare the diagnostic coding undertaken by chiropractors and an independent coder. METHOD: A codin exercise based on the International Classification of Primary Care version 2, PLUS extension (ICPC-2 PLUS) provided the 14 chiropractors with some experience in diagnostic coding, followed by an interview on the topic. The interviews were analysed thematically. The participating chiropractors and an independent coder applied ICPC-2 PLUS terms to the diagnoses of 10 patients. Then the level of agreement between the chiropractors and the coder was determined and Cohen’s Kappa was used to determine the agreement beyond that expected by chance. RESULTS: From the interviews the three emerging themes were: 1) Advantages and disadvantages of using a clinical coding system in chiropractic practice, 2) ICPC-2 PLUS terminology issues for chiropractic practice and 3) Implementation of a coding system into chiropractic practice. The participating chiropractors did not uniformly support or condemn the idea of using diagnostic coding. However there was a strong agreement that the terminology in ICPC-2 PLUS would not be applicable or desirable for all practice types. In the coding exercise the chiropractors in total coded 202 diagnoses for 135 patients. The overall percentage agreement between the chiropractors and the coder was 52% (17% expected by chance) with a Kappa score of 0.4 (95% CI 0.3-0.7). Agreement was lower for more detailed coding (percentage agreement 35%; Kappa score of 0.3 (95% CI 0.2-0.5)). CONCLUSION: It appears that implementation of diagnostic coding would be possible in the majority of the chiropractic practices that participated in this study. However for those chiropractors who do not focus on symptoms in their approach to clinical care, it could be challenging to use the ICPC-2 PLUS coding system, since ICPC-2 PLUS is a symptom-based classification. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0051-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4333265
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43332652015-02-20 The use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice Testern, Cecilie D Hestbæk, Lise French, Simon D Chiropr Man Therap Research BACKGROUND: Diagnostic coding has several potential benefits, including improving the feasibility of data collection for research and clinical audits and providing a common language to improve interdisciplinary collaboration. The primary aim of this study was to determine the views and perspectives of chiropractors about diagnostic coding and explore the use of it in a chiropractic setting. A secondary aim was to compare the diagnostic coding undertaken by chiropractors and an independent coder. METHOD: A codin exercise based on the International Classification of Primary Care version 2, PLUS extension (ICPC-2 PLUS) provided the 14 chiropractors with some experience in diagnostic coding, followed by an interview on the topic. The interviews were analysed thematically. The participating chiropractors and an independent coder applied ICPC-2 PLUS terms to the diagnoses of 10 patients. Then the level of agreement between the chiropractors and the coder was determined and Cohen’s Kappa was used to determine the agreement beyond that expected by chance. RESULTS: From the interviews the three emerging themes were: 1) Advantages and disadvantages of using a clinical coding system in chiropractic practice, 2) ICPC-2 PLUS terminology issues for chiropractic practice and 3) Implementation of a coding system into chiropractic practice. The participating chiropractors did not uniformly support or condemn the idea of using diagnostic coding. However there was a strong agreement that the terminology in ICPC-2 PLUS would not be applicable or desirable for all practice types. In the coding exercise the chiropractors in total coded 202 diagnoses for 135 patients. The overall percentage agreement between the chiropractors and the coder was 52% (17% expected by chance) with a Kappa score of 0.4 (95% CI 0.3-0.7). Agreement was lower for more detailed coding (percentage agreement 35%; Kappa score of 0.3 (95% CI 0.2-0.5)). CONCLUSION: It appears that implementation of diagnostic coding would be possible in the majority of the chiropractic practices that participated in this study. However for those chiropractors who do not focus on symptoms in their approach to clinical care, it could be challenging to use the ICPC-2 PLUS coding system, since ICPC-2 PLUS is a symptom-based classification. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0051-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4333265/ /pubmed/25699173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-015-0051-1 Text en © Testern et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Testern, Cecilie D
Hestbæk, Lise
French, Simon D
The use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice
title The use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice
title_full The use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice
title_fullStr The use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice
title_full_unstemmed The use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice
title_short The use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice
title_sort use of diagnostic coding in chiropractic practice
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4333265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25699173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-015-0051-1
work_keys_str_mv AT testerncecilied theuseofdiagnosticcodinginchiropracticpractice
AT hestbæklise theuseofdiagnosticcodinginchiropracticpractice
AT frenchsimond theuseofdiagnosticcodinginchiropracticpractice
AT testerncecilied useofdiagnosticcodinginchiropracticpractice
AT hestbæklise useofdiagnosticcodinginchiropracticpractice
AT frenchsimond useofdiagnosticcodinginchiropracticpractice