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.

Who wrote the Second Ave maris stella of Tomás Luis de Victoria?

Contrary to what Felipe Pedrell indicates, the second Ave maris stella in his Victoria's collected works (vol. V, 1908, pp. 100-3, n° 33) doesn't appear in the collection published in 1600 in Madrid by the composer, nor in any other of the musician's books. In the 1600 edition, Victoria reissues the two first verses (plainchant followed by polyphony) of the Ave maris stella published in 1576 and then again in 1581. The earliest source of the problematic Ave maris stella is Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Musik-Abteilung, 2 Mus. pr. 23 handschriftlicher Beiband, dating from the third quarter oft he seventeenth century. This source is a manuscrit that runs as an appendix to the 1581 edition of Victoria's hymns. No attributions are given in the manuscript. The first attributions of the piece to Victoria arise in the nineteenth century, in manuscripts copied by Johann Michael Hauber, Johann Caspar Aiblinger, August Baumgartner and Carl Proske, and preserved in Munich and Regensburg. Proske pubished the piece in his Musica divina in 1859 (Annus primus, vol. III, pp. 419-24). The most probable hypothesis ist that Pedrell had knowledge of the second Ave maris stella, under the spanish composer's name, via Proske's Musica divina. In all likelihood the piece is not by Victoria, not least because the composer has never written odd polyphonic verses of hymns. In his Studies in the Music of Tomás Luis de Victoria (2001), Eugene Casjen Cramer relies on the supposed authenticity of the work to ascribe the others pieces of Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Musik-Abteilung, 2 Mus. pr. 23 handschriftlicher Beiband to the composer. These attributions should therefore be refuted.