Researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago have determined that the transition to ICD-10 could cause complications in hospital safety assessments.
The researchers looked at the transition from ICD-9 and ICD-10 and found that in some cases, the translations or mappings are convoluted. As an example, they note that a hemorrhage coded in ICD-9 may have any of several different codes in ICD-10 depending on which organ system is involved. This, the researchers say, make it difficult to tell whether a hospital’s safety record is improving, or information is simply slipping through the cracks.
“It’s possible to select ‘accurate’ new ICD-10 codes that make you look safer than you are because of the differences in the design of the ICD-10 system,” Andrew Boyd, assistant professor of biomedical and health information sciences at UIC and first author of the paper, said in a statement. He added that some hospitals may look less safe than they really are because of apparent increases in patient safety indicators that are actually the same indicators calculated differently.
The American Medical Association and the International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation are working together, through a collaborative agreement, to create better integration between their proprietary code sets in support of interoperability and healthcare data analytics.
Officials from Carequality have stated that there are now more than 150,000 clinicians across 11,000 clinics and 500 hospitals live on its network. These participants are also able to share health data records with one another, regardless of technology vendor.
While stolen financial data still has a higher market value than stolen medical records, as financial data can be monetized faster, there are indications that there is ongoing development of a market for stolen medical data, according to an Intel Security McAfee Labs report.