Volume 35, Issue 3 (June 2024)                   Studies in Medical Sciences 2024, 35(3): 165-173 | Back to browse issues page

Research code: 3279
Ethics code: IR.UMSU.REC.1402.132


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Khezri H, Bayzidi S, Jebraeily M. EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY OF CODED DATA IN THE TRAUMA REGISTRY SYSTEM OF URMIA UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES. Studies in Medical Sciences 2024; 35 (3) :165-173
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-6240-en.html
Associate Professor, Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran (Corresponding Author) , jabraily@gmail.com
Abstract:   (572 Views)
Background & Aims: The trauma registry system was established as a tool to identify risk factors, assess service quality, and conduct research. To achieve this goal, complete recording of information and accurate coding are vital. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of coded data in the trauma registry system of Urmia University of Medical Sciences.
Materials & Methods: This descriptive-cross-sectional and retrospective research was conducted in 2023. The research population consisted of 400 medical records, selected through random sampling. The data collection tool was a checklist developed by the researcher, whose validity and reliability were confirmed. The data were analyzed using SPSS software.
Results: In total, 1001 and 1050 codes were registered by the system coder and the expert, respectively, for 400 cases. The obtained results showed a 95% completeness of the codes. The accuracy of coding diagnoses was at the level of the first three characters (81%), the fourth (61%), and the fifth (30%), and for coding external causes at the level of the first three characters (62%), the fourth (35%), and the fifth (28%). The reliability of the codes assigned by the coder in the first and second stages was found to be κ=91.8% for the first three characters, κ=84.3% for the fourth character, and κ=35% for the fifth character.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the coded data are favorable in terms of completeness and reliability of codes. In evaluating the accuracy of codes, at the level of the first three characters, it is favorable, but at the level of the fourth and fifth characters, it is unfavorable. Therefore, to improve the coding quality of the trauma registry system, continuous evaluation of coding is necessary, and necessary feedback should be provided to the coders.
Full-Text [PDF 394 kb]   (177 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: اطلاع رسانی پزشکی

References
1. Rossiter ND. Trauma-the forgotten pandemic? Int Orthop 2022 Jan;46(1):3-11. [DOI:10.1007/s00264-021-05213-z] [PMID] []
2. Mock C, Juillard C, Brundage S, Goosen J, Joshipura M. Guidelines for Trauma Quality Improvement Programmes. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 2010;68(6):1518. [DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e1098d]
3. Committee on Trauma American College of Surgeons. Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006. [URL]
4. Moore L, Clark D. The value of trauma registries. Injury 2008;39(6):686-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2008.02.023] [PMID]
5. Twiss E, Krijnen P, Schipper I. Accuracy and reliability of injury coding in the national Dutch Trauma Registry. Int J Qual Health Care 2021;33(1):mzab041. [DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzab041] [PMID] []
6. Zehtabchi S, Nishijima DK, McKay MP, Clay Mann N. Trauma registries: history, logistics, limitations, and contributions to emergency medicine research. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18(6):637-43. [DOI:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01083.x] [PMID]
7. O'Reilly GM, Cameron PA, Joshipura M. Global trauma registry mapping: a scoping review. Injury 2012;43:1148-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2012.03.003] [PMID]
8. O'Reilly GM, Joshipura M, Cameron PA, Gruen R. Trauma registries in developing countries: a review of the published experience. Injury 2013;44(6):713-21. [DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2013.02.003] [PMID]
9. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370(9596):1453-7. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X] [PMID]
10. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Medical Records Manual: A Guide for Developing Countries. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub Llc; 2002. [URL]
11. Leon-Chisen N. Coding and quality reporting: resolving the discrepancies, finding opportunities. J AHIMA 2007;78(7):26-30. [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]
12. Nair GJ. Ensuring quality in the coding process: a key differentiator for the accurate interpretation of safety data. Perspect Clin Res 2013;4(3):181. [DOI:10.4103/2229-3485.115383] [PMID] []
13. Bowman SM, Aitken ME. Assessing external cause of injury coding accuracy for transport injury hospitalizations. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2011;8(Fall). [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Neal R, Rokkas P, McClure RJ. Interrater reliability of injury coding in the Queensland Trauma Registry. Emerg Med Australa 2003 Feb;15(1):38-41. [DOI:10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00406.x] [PMID]
15. Asadi F, Hosseini MA, Almasi S. Reliability of trauma coding with ICD-10. Can J Trauma. 2022;25(2):102-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.08.005] [PMID] []
16. O'Reilly GM, Gabbe B, Braaf S, Cameron PA. An interview of trauma registry custodians to determine lessons learnt. Injury 2016;47(1):116-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2015.06.032] [PMID]
17. Bray F, Parkin DM. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: principles and methods. Part I: comparability, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(5):747-55. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.032] [PMID]
18. Askham N, Cook D, Doyle M, Fereday H, Gibson M, Landbeck U, et al. The six primary dimensions for data quality assessment: defining data quality dimensions. DAMA; viewed 05 July 2017. [URL]
19. Abdelhak M. Health Information: Management of a Strategic Resource. Saunders WB Co; 2000. [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]
20. Ehsani-Moghadam B, Martin K, Queenan JA. Data quality in healthcare: a report of practical experience with the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network data. HIM J 2021;50(2-1):88-92. [DOI:10.1177/1833358319887743] [PMID]
21. Ali Ali B, Lefering R, Belzunegui Otano T. Quality assessment of Major Trauma Registry of Navarra: completeness and correctness. Int J Care Pathw 2019;26(2):137-44. [DOI:10.1080/17457300.2018.1515229] [PMID]
22. Alipour J, Karimi A, Erfannia L, Shahrakipour M, Hayavi Haghighi MH, Kadkhoda A, et al. Reliability of medical diagnosis with international classification of diseases 10th version in 2011. HIM J 2013;10(1):26-34. (Persian) [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]
23. Harteloh P, De Bruin K, Kardaun J. The reliability of cause-of-death coding in The Netherlands. Eur J [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Studies in Medical Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb