Have ICD-10 Coding Practices Changed Since 2015?
Abstract
Usage of ICD-10 codes in administrative data has continued to shift since mandatory adoption in 2015. Identifying changing patterns in coding behavior is imperative in producing reliable analyses and robust conclusions. We examined the granularity of ICD-10 coding over time in a cohort selected from the IBM Explorys Therapeutic Dataset, which contains the records of over 60 million patients. Our seasonality-aware trend model identified patterns of interest, such as increased use of laterality codes for pain and increased use of codes denoting concepts novel to ICD- 10 for screening encounters. Those relying on these codes should adjust for these 'learning curve' effects. This work should be extended to additional modalities of terminology usage and represents a starting point for researchers working with dynamic clinical ontologies.
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: 60 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Regulation of nucleolus assembly by non-coding RNA polymerase II transcripts
- For a Healthy Histone Code, a Little SUMO in the Tail Keeps the Acetyl Away
- Discovering a binary CTCF code with a little help from BORIS
- Article Commentary: Stabilizing the Code–-Methods to Preserve RNA Prove Their Worth
- Foreword to the Special Issue for the RINTC (The Implicit Seismic Risk of Code-Conforming Structures) Project
- Commentary: Promoting Health and Well-being in Pediatric Primary Care Settings: Using Health and Behavior Codes at Routine Well-child Visits
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.