Evidence Hub

Comparison of Two Major Emergency Department-Based Free-Text Chief-Complaint Coding Systems

Christina A. Mikosz, J Silva, Sue M. Black, Gillian S. Gibbs, Ida Laura Benito de Cárdenas

PsycEXTRA Dataset, 2004

21,736 participants · 33 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (EDs) using free-text chief-complaint data for syndromic surveillance face a unique challenge because a complaint might be described and coded in multiple ways. OBJECTIVE: Two major ED-based free-text chief-complaint coding systems were compared for agreement between free-text interpretation and syndrome coding. METHODS: Chief-complaint data from 21,736 patients at an urban ED were processed through both the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) syndrome coding system as modified by the Chicago Department of Public Health and the Real-Time Outbreak Detection System Complaint Coder (CoCo, version 2.1, University of Pittsburgh). To account for differences in each system's specified syndromes, relevant syndromes from the DOHMH system were collapsed into the corresponding CoCo categories so that a descriptive comparison could be made. DOHMH classifications were combined to match existing CoCo categories as follows: 1) vomit+diarrhea = Gastrointestinal; 2) cold+respiratory+asthma = Respiratory; 3) fevflu = Constitutional; 4) rash = Rash; 5) sepsis+other = Other, 6) unknown = Unknown. RESULTS: Overall agreement between DOHMH and CoCo syndrome coding was optimal (0.614 kappa). However, agreement between individual syndromes varied substantially. Rash and Respiratory had the highest agreement (0.711 and 0.594 kappa, respectively). Other and Constitutional had an intermediate level of agreement (0.453 and 0.419 kappa,…

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