International Journal of STD & AIDS > Volume 18, Number 2 > Pp. 118-119

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Coyne, K M Articles by McOwan, A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Audit reports

KC60 coding: room for improvement – a study into consistencies and inconsistencies in the use of diagnosing codes

K M Coyne, C Cohen, S Mandalia and A McOwan

St Stephen's Centre, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, London, UK; West London Centre for Sexual Health, London, UK; HIV/GUM Directorate, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, London, UK; Victoria Clinic for HIV and Sexual Health, London, UK

Twenty mock cases were designed. Thirty-two doctors completed the study, assigning local and KC60 codes for service provision and diagnoses. They gave a wide range of responses, often missing codes or adding inappropriate ones. Where the diagnosis was clear, e.g. gonorrhoea, 97% assigned the correct KC60 code. However, the KC60 codes for service provision (S1, S2, P1A, P3, etc.) were frequently omitted, representing a significant underestimate of workload. Some local codes were given by only 6–28% of clinicians, and when they included them, doctors were more likely to omit KC60 codes. Low response rates for local codes renders these codes unhelpful. Simplification of coding procedures is needed so that diagnoses and workload are documented accurately. This is crucial at a time of modernization of genitourinary (GU) Medicine services and the introduction of Payment by Results.

Key Words: KC60 • DIAGNOSING CODES • CODING • GENITOURINARY MEDICINE

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?