Running head: ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN

HEALTHCARE 1

ICD-10 Adherence and Quality Response in Healthcare

Sunny Carrington-Hahn

University of North Carolina Greensboro School of Nursing

UNCG Honor Code, Academic Integrity Pledge: I have abided by the Academic
Integrity Policy on this assignment.
Signed Sunny Carrington-Hahn Date 10/29/16
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 2

Abstract

With the conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10 coding in healthcare, accurate and

consistent documentation by providers is imperative for quality measuring and financial

reimbursements. ICD-10 codes that connect care, medications, labs, and procedures to

reimbursement from payers have to be substantiated by clinical documentation from

physicians and other providers. The importance of sound clinical judgement and

prudence with care, medications, labs, and procedures is essential in modern healthcare

that maintains high quality for patients and hospitals. This literature review seeks to

expound on existing research with ICD-10 coding and documentation and its impact on

mortality, quality, and disease classification.

Keywords: ICD-10 Implementation, coding quality, disease classification,

mortality, productivity
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 3

ICD-10 Adherence and Quality Response in Healthcare

The World Health Organization (WHO) was responsible for adopting the first

version of the International classification of Diseases (ICD) in 1900 to internationally

monitor and compare mortality statistics and causes of death. Over the years, ICD has

been revised to reflect new knowledge of disease and health. In 1979, WHO released the

8th version of ICD, however, the United States modified ICD-9 by adding more disease

categories and extending coding rubrics to better explain a patients clinical presentation.

This revision of ICD-9 became ICD-9 Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), and the most

recent version, ICD-10 used by the U.S., was introduced in 1992 (WHO, 1992).

A foremost distinction between the ICD-10 and ICD-9-CM coding systems is the

difference between the numbers of tabular lists. ICD-10 has 21 categories of diseases

compared with 19 categories in ICD-9-CM and the category of diseases of the nervous

system and sense organs in ICD-9-CM is divided into three categories. ICD-10 includes

diseases of the nervous system, but expands diseases of the eye and adnexa and diseases

of the ear and mastoid process. Also, codes in ICD-10 are alphanumeric while codes in

ICD-9-CM are numeric. For example, each code in ICD-10 starts with a letter (i.e., A-Z),

followed by two numeric digits, a decimal, and a digit (e.g., acute bronchiolitis due to

respiratory syncytial virus is J21.0). Contrary, codes in ICD-9-CM begin with three digit

numbers (i.e., 001999), that are followed by a decimal and up to two digits (e.g., acute

bronchiolitis due to respiratory syncytial virus is 466.11) (Quan, Li, Alibhai, & Ghali,

2008, p. 1425).

As modern healthcare strives to become more standardized, reliable, and

innovative its often confronted with realities of fiscal accountabilities that are tied into
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 4

quality performance, patient safety, and patient satisfaction. Mostly due to the

complexities of U.S. billing and reimbursement practices, the transition from ICD-9 to

ICD-10 was prolonged and put off for many years compared to other countries as

healthcare organizations felt too overwhelmed to take on such a monumental adjustment.

In addition to intricate billing and repayment systems, healthcare providers in the U.S.

were faced with an enormous clinical documentation culture change. Providers had to

find ways to bridge the gap that exists between the language providers speak to describe a

clinical picture versus language that has to be captured and risk adjusted by ICD-9 and

soon to be ICD-10 codes (Govender, 2015, p. 35). Moreover, healthcare organizations

advisory boards forecasting fiscal impact of ICD-10 varied as it became apparent there

were no clear answer as to how much cash on hand is required to support the ICD-10

transition. Newell & DeSilva (2013) estimated requirements of cash on hand to range

from six to 12 months, including unrestricted investments. Insurance bond issuers

likewise prescribe the days of cash on hand and other required ratios that should be

factored into estimates (p. 78). Healthcare financial leaders were required to pursue

strategies to increase cash on hand in preparation for the ICD-10 transition. For instance,

Newell & DeSilva (2013) explained that a hospital advisory board analysis predicted

productivity to decrease for coders by 20 percent and for physicians by 10 to 20 percent

due to significant increases in provider queries following ICD-10 implementation. Over

a three-year period, the financial impact of ICD-10 implementation on a typical 250-bed

hospital was predicted to range from $2.5 million to $7.1 million in lost net revenue,

according to the analysis (p. 79). To clarify, the impact of ICD-9 to ICD-10 was daunting

in many ways to hospitals that the aftermath of the transition highlights the importance of
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 5

sustained quality measures on clinical documentation that accurately capture disease

states for trends in diseases, mortality, and ensuring the most fiscal return for profitable

operations.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria for this literature review are studies that relate ICD-10 coding to

quality in healthcare or specific diseases. Exclusion criteria for this literature review are

informative articles and ICD-9 focus only articles.

Research Problem/Purpose

The purpose of this literature review is to answer the following questions: (1) how does

ICD-10 coding aid in improving quality in healthcare?, (2) how important is provider

documentation to proper ICD-10 coding?, (3) how does ICD-10 coding affect mortality

data?, and (4) how does ICD-10 coding capture diseases and disease trends?

Methods

Twenty articles were systematically reviewed and analyzed for relevancy to the

topic of ICD-10 implementation and its impact on healthcare quality, documentation,

finance, and disease classification. Studies were then grouped into three categories:

mortality coding, quality, and disease classification. Databases utilized for article

searches include MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid, Cinahl, ProQuest, BioMed Central,

JSTOR (Journal Storage), and Academic search complete (EBSCO).

Findings

Quality

Several articles depicted studies about hospital discharge data and the influence of

ICD-10 coding of quality. Assessing quality of ICD-10 coding by coders through concise
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 6

and applicable documentation was important for patient safety, quality, and repayment

motives. Hennessy, Quan, Faris, & Beck (2010) described that the quality of coded data

is influenced by two major factors. The first factor was the clarity, precision, and

completeness of diagnoses and therapy documentation. Secondly, was the degree to

which coding was accurate and consistent by providers. The study aimed to find

characteristics and factors by which coding and the coders themselves are influenced to

code with accuracy and reliability. The authors goal was to describe the relationship

between several measures of validity in coded hospital discharge data and define coders'

volume of coding (13,000 vs. <13,000 records), coders' employment status (full- vs.

part-time), hospital type. The study reviewed 422,618 discharge records that were coded

by 59 coders and found that coder characteristics such as experience and training (2-year

collage training program) do not influence the validity of hospital discharge

data (Hennessy, Quan, Faris, & Beck, 2010). Looking at coder characteristics and their

affect or lack thereof on ICD-10 hospital discharge data, according to Hennessy, et al.,

coder characteristics do not offer more influence on ICD-10 coding quality.

An alternative way of investigating ICD-10 coding quality is to evaluate whether

or not the transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CA (International classification of

Diseases, Tenth revision, Canada) had an impact on diagnosis and comorbidity coding in

hospital discharge data. A study was performed by Walker, Hennessy, Johansen, Sambell,

Lix, & Quan, (2012) of nine Canadian provinces that transitioned from ICD-9-CM to

ICD-10 CA over a six year period starting in 2001. The Charlson index was initially

developed to predict 1-year survival in medical patients admitted to a teaching hospital.

This index is composed of 17 comorbidities, where each comorbidity is assigned a

ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 7

weighted score and then the weighted scores are summed to give an indicator of disease

burden, the Charlson score (Walker, et al., 2012, p. 3). After the conversion of ICD-10-

CA, four provinces found a decrease in the number of diagnoses coded although the

number of diagnoses coded in the other five provinces remained similar. The findings of

the study revealed the implementation of ICD-10-CA in Canadian provinces did not

significantly change coding practices; however some coding variation exists in the mean

number of diagnoses per hospital visit across provinces (Walker, Hennessy, Johansen,

Sambell, Lix, & Quan, 2012).

Additionally, a study by Quan, Bing, Saunders, Parsons, Nilsson, Alibhai, & Ghali

(2008), sought to discern whether there were improvements in the validity of coding for

clinical conditions using ICD-10 administrative hospital discharge data compared to ICD-

9-CM coding. The authors reviewed over 4,000 randomly selected charts for patients

admitted during a predetermined time frame in 2003 at four teaching hospitals in Alberta,

Canada to define the presence or absence of 32 clinical conditions and to assess the

agreement between ICD-10 data and chart data. The authors recoded the same charts

using ICD-9-CM to determine consistencies between the ICD-9-CM data and chart data

using the same clinical conditions. The accuracy between ICD-10 data relative to chart

data was compared with the accuracy of ICD-9-CM data relative to chart data, and

overall, 24 out of the 32 clinical conditions were found to have similar sensitivity values

(Quan, Bing, Saunders, Parsons, Nilsson, Alibhai, & Ghali, 2008).

Two studies by Fleming, MacFarlane, Torres, & Duszak (2015) and Stanfill,

Hsieh, Beal, & Fenton (2014) looked explicitly at the impact of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-

CM on organizational productivity and quality. Fleming et al. (2015) sought to define in

ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 8

their study how ICD-10 conversion impacted the subspecialty of radiology and its claims

for reimbursement. The findings from this study werent very clear. The authors found

that fewer than 3% of all ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes are used to report the majority of all

radiology claims. Interestingly enough, the number of commonly used ICD-9-CM codes

increased six times with ICD-10-CM codes, with musculoskeletal imaging alone

projected to increase by 30 times. Moreover, Stanfil et al. (2014) pursued to find the

variance in coder productivity using ICD-9-CM versus ICD-10-CM/PCS (PCS stands for

procedure codes) coding classifications, the potential initial productivity loss due to the

transition to ICD-10-CM/PCS, and evaluate the relationship between ICD-10-CM/PCS

coding productivity and quality. The authors determined the average coding of an

inpatient record took 17.71 minutes (69 percent) longer with ICD-10-CM/PCS than with

ICD-9-CM (Stanfil et al., 2014). They inferred through their outcomes that increased

time per case does not necessarily translate to higher quality, and that appropriate training

for coders may be required (Stanfil et al., 2014).

Examining secondary diagnoses and morbidity and comorbidity documentation

and subsequent ICD-10 coding can also highlight quality concerns in hospitals. Quan,

Eastwood, Cunningham, Liu, & Flemons, (2013) Strausberg & Hagn, (2015) evaluated

scoring metrics that aided in ICD-10 coding for adverse events in adult acute care

hospitals and morbidity and comorbidity in German hospitals. Quan, Eastwood,

Cunningham, Liu, & Flemons, (2013) looked at discharge data of 490 patients from three

adult acute care hospitals reviewing for documentation on adverse events such as deep

vein thrombosis, postoperative sepsis, and accidental puncture or laceration. These

hospitals used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) patient safety
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 9

indicators (PSIs) for case findings in the ICD-10 hospital discharge abstract data. The

authors found that ICD-10 coding was a central tool for quality case reporting.

Correspondingly, Strausberg & Hagn, (2015) developed new morbidity and comorbidity

scores founded on ICD-10 coding structure. Routine data from inpatients admitted and

discharged in 2008 from three German hospitals were used for score development, and

same data from 36 German hospitals in 2010 were used for score model evaluation. The

studys appraisal of the morbidity and comorbidity scoring model showed that when used

ICD-10 coding was less confusing.

ICD-10 coding quality can also be ascertained through particular diagnoses. For

instance, in a study by Helqvist, Gammelager, Johansen, & Sorensen (2012), quality of

ICD-10 colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis coding in the Danish National Registry of

Patients (DNRP), using the Danish Cancer Registry (DCR) as a reference was

scrutinized. A large study population of 25, 674 patients who were registered from 2001-

2006 in the DNRP with a CRC diagnosis were included. Data quality was evaluated by

estimating completeness and positive predictive value (PPV) of data in different

subcategories of patients. The authors estimated mortality and date of diagnosis to

evaluate the effect of potential differences in data quality, and their findings confirmed

the 2004 changes in ICD-10 CRC recording procedures in the DCR, completeness and

PPV were higher in the 20042006 period than in the 20012003 period (Helqvist,

Gammelager, Johansen, & Sorensen, 2012, p. 772).

Lastly, two studies by Stausberg, J., Lehmanna, N., Kaczmarekb, D., Stein, M.

(2008) and Southern et. al. (2016) looked at reliability of ICD-10 coding among three

groups of coding subjects and hospital administrative data surfacing ICD-10 codes used
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 10

for surveillance of patient safety indicators. Stausberg, J., Lehmanna, N., Kaczmarekb,

D., Stein, M. (2008) enlisted one hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists,

27 medical managers from hospitals coded 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists

coded 12 discharge letters. Members of all three groups agreed on principle diagnoses.

The study concluded that the use of coded data for quality management, health care

financing, and health care policy requires an over simplification of ICD-10 codes to

reflect a true clinical picture. Southern et. al. (2016) employed a sophisticated evaluation

of hospital administrative data and ICD-10 coding to reveal patient safety indicators.

Through a sample of 2,416,413 national hospitalizations, the authors found 2590 unique

ICD-10-CA codes flagged as having arisen after admission. Seven panelists evaluated

these in a 2-round review process, and identified a listing of 640 ICD-10-CA diagnosis

codes judged to be linked to suboptimal quality of care and thus appropriate for inclusion

in PSIs (patient safety indicators) (Southern et. al. 2016, p. 1). The authors determined

the findings to be of value and meaningful for future PSIs surveillance.

Mortality

The following studies from Daking & Dodds (2007), Kim, Shin, Im, Lee, Ko,

Park, Ahn & Song (2009), and Willis, Gabbe, Jolley, Harrison, & Cameron (2010)

discuss the use of ICD-10 in mortality coding and mortality cause discovery. Daking &

Dodds (2007) reviewed the ICD-10 codes provided by the ABS (Australian Bureau of

Statistics) in order to learn the level of comparability to independent coding of data to

ICD-10, based only on the information contained in the NCIS (The National Coroners

Information System). Independent re-coding of a random sample of NCIS cases

extracted from 2000-2003 data and comparison to pre-assigned ABS ICD-10 codes. The
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 11

two coders were found to be in alignment of each other in 61.1% of cases (Daking &

Dodds, 2007, p. 11). The results of this study show that there is no guarantee that ABS

assigned ICD-10 codes are directly comparable to ICD-10 codes that would be assigned

using the full NCIS record once a coronial case has been completed. In addition, the

study reveals issues in coding external cause deaths before all information is obtainable

(Daking & Dodds, 2007, p. 21).

Scoring methods in ICD-10 coding with mortality data was developed by authors

Kim et al. (2009), and their study also aimed to validate the method for measuring injury

severity, the excess mortality ratioadjusted Injury Severity Score (EMR-ISS), using the

International Classification of Diseases 10th Edition (ICD-10). The results from the study

revealed EMR-ISS showed better calibration and discrimination power for prediction of

death than the ICISS in most injury groups Kim et al. (2009). The EMR-ISS appears to

be a viable tool for passive injury surveillance of large data sets, such as insurance data

sets or community injury registries containing diagnosis codes (Kim et al. 2009).

Likewise, a study by Willis, Gabbe, Jolley, Harrison, & Cameron (2010) aimed to

compare the performance of ICISS with other mortality prediction tools in an Australian

trauma registry. The International Classification of Diseases Injury Severity Score

(ICISS) has been proposed as an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10-based

alternative to mortality prediction tools that use Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) data,

including the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) (Willis, Gabbe, Jolley, Harrison,

& Cameron, 2010, p. 802). The study was a retrospective review of prospectively

collected data from the Victorian State Trauma Registry, and a training dataset was

created for model development and a validation dataset for evaluation. The
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 12

multiplicative ICISS model was compared with a worst injury ICISS approach, Victorian

TRISS (V-TRISS, using local coefficients), maximum AIS severity and a multivariable

model including ICD-10-AM codes as predictors. The performance of ICISS may be

affected by the data used to develop estimates, the ICD version employed, the methods

for deriving estimates and the inclusion of covariates. The results of the study showed a

multivariable approach using ICD-10-AM codes was the best-performing method.

(Willis, Gabbe, Jolley, Harrison, & Cameron, 2010, p. 802).

The Charlson comorbidity score for ICD-9-CM adaptation has aided health

services researchers in Canada and with the ICD-10 conversion. Sundararajan,

Henderson, Perry, Muggivan, Quan, & Ghali (2004) sought to analyze the Charlson

comorbidity score in reference to the Deyo coding algorithm after the ICD-10

conversion. The Deyo coding algorithm was translated from ICD-9-CM into ICD-10-AM

in a layered fashion over time. It was first developed and validated using population-

based hospital data from Victoria, Australia. This work represents the first rigorous

adaptation of the Charlson comorbidity index for use with ICD-10 data. In comparison

with a well-established ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, it yields closely similar prevalence

and prognosis information by comorbidity category (Sundararajan et al., 2004, p. 1288).

Finally, Richardson (2008) explores the impact on relative risk estimates of

inconsistencies in outcome classification between ICD-9 and ICD-10, including scenarios

in which occupational exposure levels are correlated with year of death. The research

utilized a cohort mortality study in which follow up spans the periods during which ICD-

9 and ICD-10 were in effect. The relative risk estimate obtained when death certificates

are coded to the ICD revision in effect at time of death is compared to the relative risk
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 13

estimate that would be obtained if all death certificates were coded to a consistent ICD-10

code. Methods incorporated were simple equations relate the coefficient of bias to the

sensitivity and specificity of the classification. Conclusions made were analyses of

mortality outcomes that exhibit poor comparability between ICD-9 and -10, it may be

prudent to recode cause of death information to a standard ICD revision in order to avoid

bias that can occur when exposures are correlated with the proportion of deaths coded to

a given ICD revision (Richardson, 2008, p. 734).

Disease classification

Perhaps the crux of ICD coding is the capability to name and assign patients

clinical presentations for reasons that include improvement of healthcare procedure and

policy, accurate reimbursement, and capturing of disease trends and states. Watzlaf,

Garvin, Moeini, & Anania-Firouzan (2007) and Anderson & Rosenberg (2003) utilized

studies to identify ICD-10-CM coding aptitude for capturing diseases. Watzlaf, Garvin,

Moeini, & Anania-Firouzan (2007) goal of their study was to investigate the

completeness of the ICD-10-CM system in capturing public health diseases (reportable

diseases, diseases related to the top 10 causes of death, and diseases related to terrorism)

when compared to ICD-9-CM to measure the effectiveness (intended result) of ICD-10-

CM in capturing public health diseases when compared to ICD-9-CM to collect feedback

from users on how applicable the ICD-10-CM systems are in relation to capturing public

health diseases (p. 1). Coder agreements were compared between the AHA (American

Hospital Association) and AHIMA (American Health Information Management

Association) ICD-10-CM it was discovered that the ICD-9-CM had higher levels of

agreement than ICD-10-CM, however, general results validate that ICD-10-CM is more
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 14

precise and completely captures more of the public health diseases than ICD-9-CM.

Furthermore, in a study by Anderson & Rosenberg (2003) ICD-10 coding for some

leading causes (for instance, septicemia, influenza and pneumonia, Alzheimers disease,

and nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis) the incoherence in disease data trend is

substantial (Anderson & Rosenberg, 2003, p. 1551). Prevailing research in ICD-10

coding wasnt limited to studying general disease capturing. A study by Kokotailo & Hill

(2005) sought to understand potential improvements in stroke classification in ICD-10

coding versus ICD-9 coding through hospital administrative data from 2000-2003 in

Canada. The authors founds that stroke coding was equally good with ICD-9 (90%

[CI95 86 to 93] correct) and ICD-10 [92% (CI95 88 to 95 correct) with ICD-10. There

were some differences in coding by stroke type, notably with transient ischemic attack,

but these differences were not statistically significant. Likewise, atrial fibrillation,

coronary artery disease/ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension were

coded with high sensitivity (81% to 91%) and specificity (83% to 100%). They

concluded ICD-10 was as good as ICD-9 for stroke risk factor coding (Kokotailo & Hill,

2005, p. 1776).

In another study from Germany, authors Strausberg & Hasford (2010) evaluated

potential usefulness of ICD-10 coded diagnoses in routine hospital data for the

identification of ADE. Four sources were utilized to identify symptoms and diseases that

can occur as ADE. The data revealed 505 ICD-10-GM 2009 codes that indicate

suspected ADE, only 0.7% of hospital admissions were revealed by routine data to be

causally related to the administration of a drug, and in 5.3% of admissions there was at

least a reason to suspect relationship contributed to drug administration and ADE. The
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 15

study uncovered that ICD-10 coding was used effectively and that its practicality for the

identification of ADE should be better exploited (Strausberg & Hasford, 2010, p. 23).

Furthermore, usefulness for ICD-10 coding is the ability to capture accidents that

can lead to disease states and conditions. Karkhaneh & Voaklander (2012) inspected the

reliability and validity of emergency department (ED) coders in applying E-codes

(external cause of injury codes) in ICD-9 and ICD-10. They studied 180 randomly

selected bicycle and pedestrian injury charts from Canada hospitals nationwide, reviewed

them, and used the data as the reference standard (RS). To clarify, bicycle and pedestrian

injuries were identified from the ED information system from one period before and two

periods after transition from ICD-9 to -10 coding. The study concluded that bicycle

injuries are coded in a reliable and valid manner; however, pedestrian injuries are often

miscoded as falls (Karkhaneh & Voaklander, 2012, p. 88).

Assessment of Studies Quality

The quality of the studies used in this review was of high caliber. Study

populations sizes were mostly large with ranges of hundreds to millions. Data in these

studies were able to ascertain conclusions with high confidence. Also, study focus

questions were adequately conveyed and described. Literature search strategy was

comprehensive and involved multiple databases lending to increased quality of review.

Interpretation of Results

Results from this literature review answered the initial questions of: (1) how does

ICD-10 coding aid in improving quality in healthcare?, (2) how important is provider

documentation to proper ICD-10 coding?, (3) how does ICD-10 coding affect mortality

data?, and (4) how does ICD-10 coding capture diseases and disease trends? Overall, it
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 16

was found that ICD-10 coding allows patient data to be captured more systematically and

presents clinical information more accurately than ICD-9 coding. Disease and mortality

ICD-10 coding was just as consistent, reliable, and precise compared to ICD-9 coding.

ICD-10 coding has more variability, which allow providers flexibility to reflect complex

patient and clinical information. injury and disease surveillance research

Discussion

With the U.S. implementing ICD-10 coding and its prominence in healthcare,

local and global information sharing regarding quality, mortality, and disease is realized

with enormous potential for treatment and research progression. The studies that

discussed newer ICD-10 implementation did so with a tone of caution and reservation

citing financial and production implications. Financial burden seemed to be discussed

more in U.S. based articles as expressed by Newell & DeSilva (2013), clinical

documentation improvement, utilization management, denials management, and

improved coding efforts all can contribute to accelerating net revenue and cash on hand.

Another opportunity healthcare leaders should investigate is securing a line of credit

from a bank during the transition period, communicating with the bank how the

organization will manage the fiscal impact of the transition to ICD-10 (p.78-79). ICD-

10 coding should improve clinical documentation by providers since appropriate disease

coding is critical for medication coverage and reimbursement for services rendered.

Quality improvement with procedures, policies, and billing practices should leverage the

financial burden to healthcare organizations transitioning to ICD-10. In conclusion,

evolution of ICD-10 to modifications, revisions, and updates by WHO need to be

ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 17

accepted and scrutinized by the global healthcare community in order to accomplish

improvement of health and patient outcomes.

ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 18

References

Anderson, R.N., Rosenberg, H.M. (2003). Disease classification: measuring the effect of

the tenth revision of the International classification of disease on cause-of-death

data in the United States. Statistics in Medicine, 22(9), 1551-1570. doi:

10.1002/sim.1511

Daking, L., Dodds, L. (2007). ICD10 mortality coding and the NCIS: a comparative

study. Health Information Management Journal, 36(2), 11-23.

Govender, T. (2015). Physician engagement and documentation excellence.

Journal of Health Care Compliance, 17(4), 33-53.

Green, D. (2014). New ICD-10 coding: Documentation to provide better care, support

more accurate billing. American Nurse, 46(1), 4.

Helqvist, L., Gammelager, H., Johansen, M.B., & Sorensen, H.T. (2012). Quality of ICD-

10 colorectal cancer diagnosis codes in the Danish National Registry of Patients.

European Journal of Cancer Care, 21(6): 722-727. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-

2354.2012.01350.x

Hennessy, D.A., Quan, H., Faris, P.D., Beck, C.A. (2010). Do coder characteristics

influence validity of ICD-10 hospital discharge data? BMC health services

research, 10(99), 1-9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-99

Fleming, M., MacFarlane, D., Torres, W.E., Duszak, R., 2015. Magnitude of Impact,
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 19

Overall and on Subspecialties, of Transitioning in Radiology from ICD-9 to

ICD-10 Codes. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 12(11),

1155-1161. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.uncg.edu/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.06.014

Karkhaneh, M., Hagel, B.E., Couperthwaite, A., Saunders,L.D., Voaklander,D.C., Rowe,

B.H. (2012). Emergency department coding of bicycle and pedestrian injuries

during the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Injury prevention:

journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention,

18(2), 88-93. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.031302

Kim, J., Shin, S.D., Im, T.H., Lee, K.J., Ko, S.B., Park, J.O.,Song, J.K. (2009).

Development and Validation of the Excess Mortality Ratio-adjusted

Injury Severity Score Using the International Classification of Diseases 10th

Edition. Academic Emergency Medicine, 16(5) 454-464. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-

2712.2009.00412.x

Kokotailo, R.A., Hill, M.D. (2005). Coding of stroke and stroke risk factors using

international classification of diseases, revisions 9 and 10. Stroke, 36(8), 1776-81.

doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000174293.17959.a1
ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 20

Newell, L.M., DeSilva, J.J. (2013). Dollars and sense: mitigating budget risk for ICD-10:

there are 10 challenges hospitals and health systems should consider as they

budget resources for ICD-10 and prepare for the financial impact of

implementation. Healthcare Financial Management, 67(2), 78-81.

Quan, H., Bing, L., Saunders, L.D., Parsons, G.A., Nilsson, C.I., Alibhai, A., & Ghali,

W.A. (2008). Assessing Validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Administrative Data

in Recording Clinical Conditions in a Unique Dually Coded Database. Health

Services Research, 43(4), 1424-1441. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-

6773.2007.00822.x

Quan, H., Eastwood, C., Cunningham, C.T., Liu, M., Flemons, W., (2013). Validity of

AHRQ patient safety indicators derived from ICD-10 hospital discharge abstract

data (chart review study). BMJ OPEN, 3(10): 1-7. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-

003716

Richardson, D.B. (2006). The impact on relative risk estimates of inconsistencies

between ICD-9 and ICD-10. Occupational and environmental medicine, 63(11),

734-40. doi: 10.1136/oem.2006.027243

Southern, D.A., Burnand, B., Droesler, S.E., Flemons, W., Forster, A.J., Gurevich, Y.,

Harrison,N., Ghali, W.A. (2016). Deriving ICD-10 codes for patient safety

indicators for large-scale surveillance using administrative hospital data.

ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 21

Medical Care, 0(0), 1-9.

Stanfill, M. H., Hsieh, K.L., Beal, K., & Fenton, S. (2014). Preparing for ICD-10-

CM/PCS implementation: impact on productivity and quality. American Health

Information Management Association, 1-11.

Strausberg, J., Hagn, S. (2015). New morbidity and comorbidity scores based on the

structure of the ICD-10. PLoS One. 10(12) 1-12.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143365

Strausberg, J., Hasford, J. (2010). Identification of adverse drug events the use of

ICD-10 coded diagnoses in routine hospital data. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 107(3): 23

29. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0023

Stausberg, J., Lehmanna, N., Kaczmarekb, D., Stein, M. (2008). Reliability of diagnoses

coding with ICD-10. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(1), 50-57.

doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.11.005

Sundararajan, V., Henderson, T., Perry, C., Muggivan, A., Quan, H., Ghali, W.A. (2004).

New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital

Mortality. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(12), 1288-94. doi:

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012

Walker, R.L., Hennessy, D.A., Johansen, H., Sambell, C., Lix, L., Quan, H. (2012).

Implementation of ICD-10 in Canada: how has it impacted coded hospital

ICD-10 ADHERENCE AND QUALITY RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE 22

Discharge data? BMC Health Services Research, 12(149).

doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-149

Watzlaf, V, Garvin, J.H., Moeini, S., Anania-Firouzan (2007). The effectiveness of ICD-

10-CM in capturing public health diseases. Perspectives in health information

management / AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association,

2007; 4(6), 1-31.

Willis, C., Gabbe, B., Jolley, D., Harrison, J.E., Cameron, P.A. (2010). Predicting trauma

patient mortality: ICD [or ICD-10-AM] versus AIS based approaches

ANZ Journal of Surgery. 80(11), 802-806. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-

2197.2010.05432.x

World Health Organization (WHO) (1992). International statistical classification of

disease and related health problems, tenth revision (ICD-10). Geneva: World

Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/