Is diabetes mellitus correctly registered and classified in primary care? A population-based study in Catalonia, Spain
To assess the prevalence of miscoding, misclassification, misdiagnosis and under-registration of diabetes mellitus (DM) in primary health care in Catalonia (Spain), and to explore use of automated algorithms to identify them. In this cross-sectional, retrospective study using an anonymized electroni...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | Endocrinologia y nutricion Ročník 63; číslo 9; s. 440 - 448 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
Spain
01.11.2016
|
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1579-2021 |
| On-line prístup: | Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Shrnutí: | To assess the prevalence of miscoding, misclassification, misdiagnosis and under-registration of diabetes mellitus (DM) in primary health care in Catalonia (Spain), and to explore use of automated algorithms to identify them.
In this cross-sectional, retrospective study using an anonymized electronic general practice database, data were collected from patients or users with a diabetes-related code or from patients with no DM or prediabetes code but treated with antidiabetic drugs (unregistered DM). Decision algorithms were designed to classify the true diagnosis of type 1 DM (T1DM), type 2 DM (T2DM), and undetermined DM (UDM), and to classify unregistered DM patients treated with antidiabetic drugs.
Data were collected from a total of 376,278 subjects with a DM ICD-10 code, and from 8707 patients with no DM or prediabetes code but treated with antidiabetic drugs. After application of the algorithms, 13.9% of patients with T1DM were identified as misclassified, and were probably T2DM; 80.9% of patients with UDM were reclassified as T2DM, and 19.1% of them were misdiagnosed as DM when they probably had prediabetes. The overall prevalence of miscoding (multiple codes or UDM) was 2.2%. Finally, 55.2% of subjects with unregistered DM were classified as prediabetes, 35.7% as T2DM, 8.5% as UDM treated with insulin, and 0.6% as T1DM.
The prevalence of inappropriate codification or classification and under-registration of DM is relevant in primary care. Implementation of algorithms could automatically flag cases that need review and would substantially decrease the risk of inappropriate registration or coding. |
|---|---|
| Bibliografia: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 1579-2021 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.endonu.2016.07.004 |