scholarly journals Reliability and validity of ICPC-2-R encoding by medical students

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
International Classification ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Reason For Encounter ◽  
Community Physician ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
Reasons For Encounter

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.

scholarly journals Worldwide Usage of International Classification of Primary Care

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (38) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Basílio ◽  
Carla Ramos ◽  
Sofia Figueira ◽  
Daniel Pinto
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
International Classification ◽  
National Language ◽  
Research Survey ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Mandatory Standard ◽  
Clinical Records ◽  
Reasons For Encounter

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.

scholarly journals Is it possible to register the ideas, concerns and expectations behind the reason for encounter as a means of classifying patient preferences with ICPC-2?

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Schrans ◽  
Pauline Boeckxstaens ◽  
An De Sutter ◽  
Sara Willems ◽  
Dirk Avonts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Specific Procedure ◽  
Reason For Encounter ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Danger To Others ◽  
Do So

BackgroundFamily practice aims to recognize the health problems and needs expressed by the person rather than only focusing on the disease. Documenting person-related information will facilitate both the understanding and delivery of person-focused care.AimTo explore if the patients’ ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE) behind the reason for encounter (RFE) can be coded with the International Classification of Primary Care, version 2 (ICPC-2) and what kinds of codes are missing to be able to do so.MethodsIn total, 613 consultations were observed, and patients’ expressions of ICE were narratively recorded. These descriptions were consequently translated to ICPC codes by two researchers. Descriptions that could not be translated were qualitatively analysed in order to identify gaps in ICPC-2.ResultsIn all, 613 consultations yielded 672 ICE expressions. Within the 123 that could not be coded with ICPC-2, eight categories could be defined: concern about the duration/time frame; concern about the evolution/severity; concern of being contagious or a danger to others; patient has no concern, but others do; expects a confirmation of something; expects a solution for the symptoms without specification of what it should be; expects a specific procedure; and expects that something is not done.DiscussionAlthough many ICE can be registered with ICPC-2, adding eight new categories would capture almost all ICE.

scholarly journals Laying the foundation for a core set of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for community-dwelling adults aged 75 years and above in general practice: a study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e024274
Author(s):  
Johanna Tomandl ◽  
Stephanie Book ◽  
Susann Gotthardt ◽  
Stefan Heinmueller ◽  
Elmar Graessel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
International Classification ◽  
Functional Health ◽  
International Classification Of Functioning ◽  
Disability And Health ◽  
Core Set ◽  
Community Dwelling Older Adults

IntroductionWith the medical focus on disease, the problem of overdiagnosis inevitably increases with ageing. Considering the functional health of patients might help to discriminate between necessary and unnecessary medicine. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is an internationally recognised tool for describing functional health. However, it is too detailed to be used in primary care practices. Consequently, the aim of this study is to identify relevant codes for an ICF core set for community-dwelling older adults (75 years and above) in primary care.Methods and analysisThe study will follow the methodology proposed by the ICF Research Branch to identify relevant concepts from different perspectives: (1) Research perspective: A systematic review of studies focusing on functional health in old age will be conducted in different databases. Relevant concepts will be extracted from the publications. (2) Patients’ perspective: Relevant areas of functioning and disability will be identified conducting qualitative interviews and focus groups with community-dwelling older persons. The interviews will be transcribed verbatim and analysed using the documentary method of interpretation. (3) Experts’ perspective: An online survey with open-ended questions will be conducted. Answers will be analysed using the qualitative content analysis of Mayring. (4) Clinical perspective: A cross-sectional empirical study will be performed to assess the health status of community-dwelling older adults using the extended ICF checklist and other measurement tools.Relevant concepts identified in each study will be linked to ICF categories resulting in four preliminary core sets.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study was obtained (90_17B). All participants will provide written informed consent. Data will be pseudonymised for analysis. Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and journal publications.Trial registration numberProjektdatenbank Versorgungsforschung Deutschland: VfD_17_003833,Clinicaltrials.gov:NCT03384732and PROSPERO: CRD42017067784.

Assessing the opinions and experiences of German-speaking psychiatrists regarding necessary changes for the 11th revision of the mental disorders chapter of the international classification of disorders (ICD-11)

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 437-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Zielasek ◽  
H.J. Freyberger ◽  
M. Jänner ◽  
H.P. Kapfhammer ◽  
N. Sartorius ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Attention Deficit Disorder ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Diagnostic Category ◽  
International Classification ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
Icd 10

AbstractWe performed an Internet-based questionnaire survey of the opinions of German-speaking psychiatrists regarding the experiences with the 10th revision of the international classification of mental disorders (chapter F of ICD-10). We received 304 completed questionnaires including more than 500 free-text comments. The responding group was characterized by professionally experienced middle-aged psychiatrists. German-speaking psychiatrists were comparatively content with ICD-10. Most diagnostic categories received a “satisfied” or “very satisfied” rating by the majority of respondents. Negative “goodness of fit” ratings – a possible indicator of the need for revision – were not higher than 50% for any category. Based on free-text entries, neurasthenia was the single diagnostic category most often suggested for deletion in ICD-11. Changes were considered necessary mainly for dementias and personality disorders. Adult attention deficit disorder and narcissistic personality disorder were the two diagnostic categories most frequently suggested to be added as new categories. This study provides valuable information related to perceived clinical utility of the classification, though with a narrow sample. Information about clinicians’ experiences should be combined with scientific evidence for the revision process of ICD-11.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document