Premium
Early impact of the ICD‐10‐CM transition on selected health outcomes in 13 electronic health care databases in the United States
Author(s) -
Panozzo Catherine A.,
Woodworth Tiffany S.,
Welch Emily C.,
Huang TingYing,
Her Qoua L.,
Haynes Kevin,
Rogers Catherine,
Menzin Talia J.,
Ehrmann Max,
Freitas Katherine E.,
Haug Nicole R.,
Toh Sengwee
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.023
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1099-1557
pISSN - 1053-8569
DOI - 10.1002/pds.4563
Subject(s) - medicine , icd 10 , incidence (geometry) , myocardial infarction , health care , electronic health record , database , pediatrics , emergency medicine , family medicine , physics , psychiatry , computer science , optics , economics , economic growth
Purpose To describe the consistency in the frequency of 5 health outcomes across the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐9‐CM) and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐10‐CM) eras in the US. Methods We examined the incidence of 3 acute conditions (acute myocardial infarction [AMI], angioedema, ischemic stroke) and the prevalence of 2 chronic conditions (diabetes, hypertension) during the final 5 years of the ICD‐9‐CM era (January 2010‐September 2015) and the first 15 months of the ICD‐10‐CM era (October 2015‐December 2016) in 13 electronic health care databases in the Sentinel System. For each health outcome reviewed during the ICD‐10‐CM era, we evaluated 4 definitions, including published algorithms derived from other countries, as well as simple‐forward, simple‐backward, and forward‐backward mapping using the General Equivalence Mappings. For acute conditions, we also compared the incidence between April to December 2014 and April to December 2016. Results The analyses included data from approximately 172 million health plan members. While the incidence or prevalence of AMI and hypertension performed similarly across the 2 eras, the other 3 outcomes did not demonstrate consistent trends for some or all the ICD‐10‐CM definitions assessed. Conclusions When using data from both the ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10‐CM eras, or when using results from ICD‐10‐CM data to compare to results from ICD‐9‐CM data, researchers should test multiple ICD‐10‐CM outcome definitions as part of sensitivity analysis. Ongoing assessment of the impact of ICD‐10‐CM transition on identification of health outcomes in US electronic health care databases should occur as more data accrue.