COMPARISON OF ICD-9-CM TO ICD-10-CM CROSSWALKS DERIVED BY PHYSICIAN AND CLINICAL CODER VS. AUTOMATED METHODS.
Purpose: To evaluate whether automated methods are sufficient for deriving ICD-10-CM algorithms by comparing ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalks from general equivalence mappings (GEMs) with physician/clinical coder-derived crosswalks. Patients and methods: Forward mapping was used to derive ICD-10-CM...
| Publicado en: | Perspectives in Health Information Management pp. 1 - 9 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
| Formato: | research Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
American Health Information Management Association
Spring2021
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | Purpose: To evaluate whether automated methods are sufficient for deriving ICD-10-CM algorithms by comparing ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalks from general equivalence mappings (GEMs) with physician/clinical coder-derived crosswalks. Patients and methods: Forward mapping was used to derive ICD-10-CM crosswalks for 10 conditions. As a sensitivity analysis, forward-backward mapping (FBM) was also conducted for three clinical conditions. The physician/coder independently developed crosswalks for the same conditions. Differences between the crosswalks were summarized using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (JSC). Results: Physician/coder crosswalks were typically far more inclusive than GEMs crosswalks. Crosswalks for peripheral artery disease were most dissimilar (JSC: 0.06), while crosswalks for mild cognitive impairment (JSC: 1) and congestive heart failure (0.85) were most similar. FBM added ICD-10-CM codes for all three conditions but did not consistently increase similarity between crosswalks. Conclusion: The GEMs and physician/coder algorithms rarely aligned fully; human review is still required for ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM crosswalk development. |
|---|