IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0216206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of injury severity scores (ISS) obtained by manual coding versus “Two-step conversion” from ICD-9-CM

Author

Listed:
  • Rebeca Abajas-Bustillo
  • Francisco José Amo-Setién
  • César Leal-Costa
  • María del Carmen Ortego-Mate
  • María Seguí-Gómez
  • María Jesús Durá-Ros
  • Mark R Zonfrillo

Abstract

Background: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the standard diagnostic tool for classifying and coding diseases and injuries. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is the most widely used injury severity scoring system. Although manual coding is considered the gold standard, it is sometimes unavailable or impractical. There have been many prior attempts to develop programs for the automated conversion of ICD rubrics into AIS codes. Objective: To convert ICD, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes into AIS 2005 (update 2008) codes via a derived map using a two-step process and, subsequently, to compare Injury Severity Score (ISS) resulting from said conversion with manually coded ISS values. Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective study was designed in which medical records at the Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla of Cantabria (HUMV) and the Complejo Hospitalario of Navarra (CHN), both in Spain, were reviewed. Coding of injuries using AIS 2005 (update 2008) version was done manually by a certified AIS specialist and ISS values were calculated. ICD-9-CM codes were automatically converted into ISS values by another certified AIS specialist in a two-step process. ISS scores obtained from manual coding were compared to those obtained through this conversion process. Results: The comparison of obtained through conversion versus manual ISS resulted in 396 concordant pairs (70.2%); the analysis of values according to ISS categories (ISS 24) showed 493 concordant pairs (87.4%). Regarding the criterion of “major trauma” patient (i.e., ISS> 15), 538 matching pairs (95.2%) were obtained. The conversion process resulted in underestimation of ISS in 112 cases (19.9%) and conversion was not possible in 136 cases (19%) for different reasons. Conclusions: The process used in this study has proven to be a useful tool for selecting patients who meet the ISS>15 criterion for “major trauma”. Further research is needed to improve the conversion process.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebeca Abajas-Bustillo & Francisco José Amo-Setién & César Leal-Costa & María del Carmen Ortego-Mate & María Seguí-Gómez & María Jesús Durá-Ros & Mark R Zonfrillo, 2019. "Comparison of injury severity scores (ISS) obtained by manual coding versus “Two-step conversion” from ICD-9-CM," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216206
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216206
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216206&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0216206?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.