ϟ
 
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83
OpenAccess: Closed
This work is not Open Acccess. We may still have a PDF, if this is the case there will be a green box below.

Coding Algorithms for Defining Comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Administrative Data

Hude Quan,Vijaya Sundararajan,Patricia Halfon,Andrew Fong,Bernard Burnand,Jean‐Christophe Luthi,L. Duncan Saunders,Cynthia A. Beck,Thomas E. Feasby,William A. Ghali

ICD-10
Algorithm
Medicine
2005
Objectives: Implementation of the International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) coding system presents challenges for using administrative data. Recognizing this, we conducted a multistep process to develop ICD-10 coding algorithms to define Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities in administrative data and assess the performance of the resulting algorithms. Methods: ICD-10 coding algorithms were developed by “translation” of the ICD-9-CM codes constituting Deyo's (for Charlson comorbidities) and Elixhauser's coding algorithms and by physicians’ assessment of the face-validity of selected ICD-10 codes. The process of carefully developing ICD-10 algorithms also produced modified and enhanced ICD-9-CM coding algorithms for the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities. We then used data on in-patients aged 18 years and older in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative hospital discharge data from a Canadian health region to assess the comorbidity frequencies and mortality prediction achieved by the original ICD-9-CM algorithms, the enhanced ICD-9-CM algorithms, and the new ICD-10 coding algorithms. Results: Among 56,585 patients in the ICD-9-CM data and 58,805 patients in the ICD-10 data, frequencies of the 17 Charlson comorbidities and the 30 Elixhauser comorbidities remained generally similar across algorithms. The new ICD-10 and enhanced ICD-9-CM coding algorithms either matched or outperformed the original Deyo and Elixhauser ICD-9-CM coding algorithms in predicting in-hospital mortality. The C-statistic was 0.842 for Deyo's ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, 0.860 for the ICD-10 coding algorithm, and 0.859 for the enhanced ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, 0.868 for the original Elixhauser ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, 0.870 for the ICD-10 coding algorithm and 0.878 for the enhanced ICD-9-CM coding algorithm. Conclusions: These newly developed ICD-10 and ICD-9-CM comorbidity coding algorithms produce similar estimates of comorbidity prevalence in administrative data, and may outperform existing ICD-9-CM coding algorithms.
Loading...
    Cite this:
Generate Citation
Powered by Citationsy*
    Coding Algorithms for Defining Comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Administrative Data” is a paper by Hude Quan Vijaya Sundararajan Patricia Halfon Andrew Fong Bernard Burnand Jean‐Christophe Luthi L. Duncan Saunders Cynthia A. Beck Thomas E. Feasby William A. Ghali published in 2005. It has an Open Access status of “closed”. You can read and download a PDF Full Text of this paper here.