Views of diagnosis distribution in primary care in 2.5 million encounters in Stockholm: a comparison between ICD-10 and SNOMED CT.

BACKGROUND Primary care (PC) in Sweden provides ambulatory and home health care outside hospitals. Within the County Council of Stockholm, coding of diagnoses in PC is mandatory and is done by general practitioners (GPs) using a Swedish primary care version of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10). ICD-10 has a mono-hierarchical structure. SNOMED CT is poly-hierarchical and belongs to a new generation of terminology systems with attributes (characteristics) that connect concepts in SNOMED CT and build relationships. Mapping terminologies and classifications has been pointed out as a way to attain additional advantages in describing and documenting healthcare data. A poly-hierarchical system supports the representation and aggregation of healthcare data on the basis of specific medical aspects and various levels of clinical detail. OBJECTIVE To describe and compare diagnoses and health problems in KSH97-P/ICD-10 and SNOMED CT using primary care diagnostic data, and to explore and exemplify complementary aggregations of diagnoses and health problems generated from a mapping to SNOMED CT. METHODS We used diagnostic data collected throughout 2006 and coded in electronic patient records (EPRs), and a mapping from KSH97-P/ICD-10 to SNOMED CT, to aggregate the diagnostic data with SNOMED CT defining hierarchical relationship Is a and selected attribute relationships. RESULTS The chapter level comparison between ICD-10 and SNOMED CT showed minor differences except for infectious and digestive system disorders. The relationships chosen aggregated the diagnostic data to 2861 concepts, showing a multidimensional view on different medical and specific levels and also including clinically relevant characteristics through attribute relationships. CONCLUSIONS SNOMED CT provides a different view of diagnoses and health problems on a chapter level, and adds significant new views of the clinical data with aggregations generated from SNOMED CT Is a and attribute relationships. A broader use of SNOMED CT is therefore of importance when describing and developing primary care.

[1]  R. Gunnarsson,et al.  Patients, general practitioners, diseases and health problems in urban general practice: a cross-sectional study on electronic patient records , 2008, Primary Health Care Research & Development.

[2]  T. Hansen,et al.  Reliability of clinical ICD-10 schizophrenia diagnoses , 2005, Nordic journal of psychiatry.

[3]  A. Rossi Mori,et al.  Standards to Support Development of Terminological Systems for Healthcare Telematics , 1998, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[4]  György Surján,et al.  Design principles of DOLCE-based formal representation of ICD10 , 2008, MIE.

[5]  A. Grimsmo,et al.  Patients, diagnoses and processes in general practice in the Nordic countries. An attempt to make data from computerised medical records available for comparable statistics. , 2001, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[6]  John F. Hurdle,et al.  Measuring diagnoses: ICD code accuracy. , 2005, Health services research.

[7]  V. Sundararajan,et al.  Quality of Diagnosis and Procedure Coding in ICD-10 Administrative Data , 2006, Medical care.

[8]  Gunnar H. Nilsson,et al.  Enriching a primary health care version of ICD-10 using SNOMED CT mapping , 2010, J. Biomed. Semant..

[9]  J. Sigurdsson,et al.  Health problems in family practice. An Icelandic multicentre study. , 1996, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[10]  R A Carleton,et al.  Possible influence of the prospective payment system on the assignment of discharge diagnoses for coronary heart disease. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  G. Hoddevik [Diagnosis versus code]. , 2005, Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke.

[12]  J. Cimino Desiderata for Controlled Medical Vocabularies in the Twenty-First Century , 1998, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[13]  György Surján,et al.  Questions on validity of International Classification of Diseases-coded diagnoses , 1999, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[14]  C. Weel,et al.  The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges. , 2006, Family practice.

[15]  Margaret M Foley,et al.  The code ahead: Key issues shaping clinical terminology and classification. , 2006, Journal of AHIMA.

[16]  G. Nilsson,et al.  Textual content, health problems and diagnostic codes in electronic patient records in general practice , 2003, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[17]  Gunnar H. Nilsson,et al.  Mapping the categories of the Swedish primary health care version of ICD-10 to SNOMED CT concepts: Rule development and intercoder reliability in a mapping trial , 2007, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[18]  Jürgen Stausberg,et al.  Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 , 2008, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[19]  Sue E Bowman Coordinating SNOMED-CT and ICD-10: Getting the Most out of Electronic Health Record Systems , 2005 .

[20]  M. Gersenovic The ICD Family of Classifications , 1995, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[21]  C. van Weel,et al.  What went and what came? Morbidity trends in general practice from the Netherlands , 2008, The European journal of general practice.