The barriers to clinical coding in general practice: A literature review

Clinical coding is variable in UK general practice. The reasons for this remain undefined. This review explains why there are no readily available alternatives to recording structured clinical data and reviews the barriers to recording structured clinical data. Methods used included a literature review of bibliographic databases, university health informatics departments, and national and international medical informatics associations. The results show that the current state of development of computers and data processing means there is no practical alternative to coding data. The identified barriers to clinical coding are: the limitations of the coding systems and terminologies and the skill gap in their use; recording structured data in the consultation takes time and is distracting; the level of motivation of primary care professionals; and the priority within the organization. A taxonomy is proposed to describe the barriers to clinical coding. This can be used to identify barriers to coding and facilitate the development of strategies to overcome them.

[1]  A. Rector.  Clinical Terminology: Why Is it so Hard? , 1999, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[2]  M Pringle,et al.  Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer. , 1995, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[3]  V. Patel,et al.  Studying the human-computer-terminology interface. , 2001, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[4]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Narrative based medicine: why study narrative? , 1999, BMJ.

[5]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  Overcoming the constraints to becoming paperless. , 2000, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[6]  David Gerrett,et al.  A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  F Griffiths,et al.  General practice and the new science emerging from the theories of 'chaos' and complexity. , 1998, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[8]  Kent A. Spackman,et al.  SNOMED clinical terms: overview of the development process and project status , 2001, AMIA.

[9]  Thomas C. Rindflesch,et al.  NLP-based information extraction for managing the molecular biology literature , 2002, AMIA.

[10]  D. Symmons,et al.  The clinical terms project. , 1992, British journal of rheumatology.

[11]  J. Cape,et al.  Consultation length, patient-estimated consultation length, and satisfaction with the consultation. , 2002, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  K. Thiru,et al.  Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  A L Rector.  Marking up is not enough. , 1993, Methods of information in medicine.

[14]  S Scobie,et al.  Can general practice data be used for needs assessment and health care planning in an inner-London district? , 1995, Journal of public health medicine.

[15]  S. Childs,et al.  The relationship between consultation length, process and outcomes in general practice: a systematic review. , 2002, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[16]  R M Milne,et al.  Completeness and accuracy of morbidity and repeat prescribing records held on general practice computers in Scotland. , 1996, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[17]  F D Hobbs,et al.  Computerised data collection: practicability and quality in selected general practices. , 1995, Family practice.

[18]  Carol Friedman,et al.  Automating SNOMED coding using medical language understanding: a feasibility study , 2001, AMIA.

[19]  J. Hollowell,et al.  The General Practice Research Database: quality of morbidity data. , 1997, Population trends.

[20]  Victoria Warmington,et al.  Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  SIMON DE LUSIGNAN,et al.  Research Paper: Does Feedback Improve the Quality of Computerized Medical Records in Primary Care? , 2002, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[22]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  Have the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in general practice improved in the last five years? The report of a two-practice pilot study , 1999 .

[23]  Hongfang Liu,et al.  Disambiguating Ambiguous Biomedical Terms in Biomedical Narrative Text: An Unsupervised Method , 2001, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[24]  T Greenhalgh,et al.  Narrative based medicine: narrative based medicine in an evidence based world. , 1999, BMJ.

[25]  Tom Chan,et al.  Using three-channel video to evaluate the impact of the use of the computer on the patient-centredness of the general practice consultation. , 2003, Informatics in primary care.

[26]  Christine Reid,et al.  The Myth of the Paperless Office , 2003, J. Documentation.

[27]  A. Halligan,et al.  Implementing clinical governance: turning vision into reality , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  Limsoon Wong,et al.  Accomplishments and challenges in literature data mining for biology , 2002, Bioinform..