<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>

COPY SCRIPT

For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu

Plastic surgery audit codes: are the results reproducible?

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 01 Jan 1991Publisher:Elsevier BVJournal:British Journal of Plastic Surgery, volume 44, pages 62-64 (issn: 0007-1226,

Authors: C.D. Reid; N.K. James;

doi: 10.1016/0007-1226(91)90183-k

pmid: 1993243

Plastic surgery audit codes: are the results reproducible?

- Summary
- Subjects
- Metrics

Abstract

The effective coding of data to produce a medical audit relies on agreement between the coders. This study was designed to assess whether coders can agree on codes for diagnosis and operations in a plastic surgery unit. Information from 50 patients was presented to a panel of six coders who were required to code the data using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) and the Office of Population Census Studies (OPCS-4) systems. The results show that agreement between all the panellists occurred in only 32 out of 50 patients for one diagnostic code and 30 out of 50 for one operation code. When a patient had more than one diagnosis or operation, agreement was very much worse. Expert coders produced better results than the medical coders. The results are discussed with reference to other coding systems.

Related Organizations

Wexham Park Hospital
United Kingdom
Frenchay Hospital
United Kingdom
Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
United Kingdom
North Bristol NHS Trust
United Kingdom

Keywords

Medical Audit, England, Abstracting and Indexing, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Diagnosis, Task Performance and Analysis, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Surgery, Plastic

Impact byBIP!

	citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	20
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Average
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Top 10%
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Average