Evidence Hub

Accuracy of clinical coding from 1210 appendicectomies in a British district general hospital

Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Taylor C, Durkin N, Patel R

International journal of surgery (London, England), 2012

1,210 participants

Abstract

AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of clinical coding in identifying negative appendicectomies. The secondary aim was to analyse trends over time in rates of simple, complex (gangrenous or perforated) and negative appendicectomies.

METHODS: Retrospective review of 1210 patients undergoing emergency appendicectomy during a five year period (2006-2010). Histopathology reports were taken as gold standard for diagnosis and compared to clinical coding lists. Clinical coding is the process by which non-medical administrators apply standardised diagnostic codes to patients, based upon clinical notes at discharge. These codes then contribute to national databases. Statistical analysis included correlation studies and regression analyses.

RESULTS: Clinical coding had only moderate correlation with histopathology, with an overall kappa of 0.421. Annual kappa values varied between 0.378 and 0.500. Overall 14% of patients were incorrectly coded as having had appendicitis when in fact they had a histopathologically normal appendix (153/1107), whereas 4% were falsely coded as having received a negative appendicectomy when they had appendicitis (48/1107). There was an overall significant fall and then rise in the rate of simple appendicitis (B coefficient -0.239 (95% confidence interval -0.426, -0.051), p = 0.014) but no change in the rate of complex appendicitis (B coefficient 0.008 (-0.015, 0.031), p = 0.476).

CONCLUSIONS: Clinical coding for negative…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,210 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free