Adaptation of AHRQ patient safety indicators for use in ICD-10 administrative data by an international consortium.

Objective: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) developed Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) for use with ICD-9-CM data. Many countries have adopted ICD-10 for coding hospital diagnoses. We conducted this study to develop an internationally harmonized ICD-10 coding algorithm for the AHRQ PSIs. Methods: The AHRQ PSI Version 2.1 has been translated into ICD-10-AM (Australian Modification), and PSI Version 3.0a has been independently translated into ICD-10-GM (German Modification). We converted these two country-specific coding algorithms into ICD-10-WHO (World Health Organization version) and combined them to form one master list. Members of an international expert panel-including physicians, professional medical coders, disease classification specialists, health services researchers, epidemiologists, and users of the PSI-independently evaluated this master list and rated each code as either "include," "exclude," or "uncertain," following the AHRQ PSI definitions. After summarizing the independent rating results, we held a face-to-face meeting to discuss codes for which there was no unanimous consensus and newly proposed codes. A modified Delphi method was employed to generate a final ICD-10 WHO coding list. Results: Of 20 PSIs, 15 that were based mainly on diagnosis codes were selected for translation. At the meeting, panelists discussed 794 codes for which consensus had not been achieved and 2,541 additional codes that were proposed by individual panelists for consideration prior to the meeting. Three documents were generated: a PSI ICD-10-WHO version-coding list, a list of issues for consideration on certain AHRQ PSIs and ICD-9-CM codes, and a recommendation to WHO to improve specification of some disease classifications. Conclusion: An ICD-10-WHO PSI coding list has been developed and structured in a manner similar to the AHRQ manual. Although face validity of the list has been ensured through a rigorous expert panel assessment, its true validity and applicability should be assessed internationally.

How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety

OBJECTIVE: As part of the WHO ICD-11 development initiative, the Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety explores meta-features of morbidity data sets, such as the optimal number of secondary diagnosis fields. DESIGN: The Health Care Quality Indicators Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development collected Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) information from administrative hospital data of 19-20 countries in 2009 and 2011. We investigated whether three countries that expanded their data systems to include more secondary diagnosis fields showed increased PSI rates compared with six countries that did not. Furthermore, administrative hospital data from six of these countries and two American states, California (2011) and Florida (2010), were analysed for distributions of coded patient safety events across diagnosis fields. RESULTS: Among the participating countries, increasing the number of diagnosis fields was not associated with any overall increase in PSI rates. However, high proportions of PSI-related diagnoses appeared beyond the sixth secondary diagnosis field. The distribution of three PSI-related ICD codes was similar in California and Florida: 89-90% of central venous catheter infections and 97-99% of retained foreign bodies and accidental punctures or lacerations were captured within 15 secondary diagnosis fields. CONCLUSIONS: Six to nine secondary diagnosis fields are inadequate for comparing complication rates using hospital administrative data; at least 15 (and perhaps more with ICD-11) are recommended to fully characterize clinical outcomes. Increasing the number of fields should improve the international and intra-national comparability of data for epidemiologic and health services research, utilization analyses and quality of care assessment.