Reliability of central coding of patient reasons for encounter in general practice, using the International Classification of Primary Care

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Britt
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (40) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle ◽  
Álvaro Damiani Zamprogno ◽  
André Filipe Lucchi Rodrigues ◽  
Lorena Camillato Sirtoli ◽  
Natália Josiele Cerqueira Checon ◽  
...  

Objective: To estimate how reliably and validly can medical students encode reasons for encounter and diagnoses using the International Classification of Primary Care, revised 2nd edition (ICPC-2-R). Methods: For every encounter they supervised during an entire semester, three family and community physician teachers entered the reasons for encounter and diagnoses in free text into a form. Two of four medical students and one teacher encoded each reason for encounter or diagnosis using the ICPC-2-R. In the beginning of the study, two three-hour workshops were held, until the teachers were confident the students were ready for the encoding. After all the reasons for encounter and the diagnoses had been independently encoded, the seven encoders resolved the definitive codes by consensus. We defined reliability as agreement between students and validity as their agreement with the definitive codes, and used Gwet’s AC1 to estimate this agreement. Results: After exclusion of encounters encoded before the last workshop, the sample consisted of 149 consecutive encounters, comprising 262 reasons for encounter and 226 diagnoses. The encoding had moderate to substantial reliability (AC1, 0.805; 95% CI, 0.767–0.843) and substantial validity (AC1, 0.864; 95% CI, 0.833–0.891). Conclusion: Medical students can encode reasons for encounter and diagnoses with the ICPC-2-R if they are adequately trained.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (38) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Basílio ◽  
Carla Ramos ◽  
Sofia Figueira ◽  
Daniel Pinto

To describe the worldwide use of the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) and other classifications in primary care settings and to identify details of ICPC use in each country. Methods: A research survey with a questionnaire requiring self-completion was emailed to members of the WONCA International Classification Committee (WICC) and family physicians (FP) from each country recognized by the United Nations (UN). Results: We obtained the e-mail addresses of representatives from 109 countries and received 61 responses (out of 259 requests sent) to the questionnaire from 52 different countries; 30 were obtained from Europe, 8 from Asia, 7 from America, 6 from Africa, and 1 from Oceania. In 34 countries (17%), a version of ICPC was available in a national language. ICPC was used in primary care setting in 27 countries (14%), but it was a mandatory standard in only 6 (3%). Assessment of the topics accounted for in the clinical records showed that 10 countries used ICPC to classify the patient’s reasons for encounter and diagnosis, while just 5 countries used ICPC to classify the patient’s reasons for encounter, diagnosis, and processes of care. Of the 24 countries responding that the use of ICPC for clinical records was not promoted in primary care, 19 used the 10th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 3 used other classifications, and 2 did not use any classification. Conclusions: Although the response rate to the questionnaire was low, we concluded that ICPC use is not widespread globally. Even for those countries reporting the use of ICPC in primary care, it is usually not a mandatory standard.


2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rainer Schaefert ◽  
Gunter Laux ◽  
Claudia Kaufmann ◽  
Dieter Schellberg ◽  
Regine Bölter ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document