The applicability of the ICD E code as a causal indicator of nonfatal injuries has been criticized. New codes have been developed to replace the ICD codes. We compared the coding reliability of the ICD E and place vs. the Nordic mechanism (M) and place codes. The mean accuracy (76 vs. 70%) (p < 0.002) and the intercoder reliability (84 vs. 69%) (p < 0.001) were better for the E than M code. The accuracy of the place codes was the same (83%). A short training improved (p < 0.001) the accuracy of all four codes. The replacement of the E code with the M code would not improve the reliability of data on causes of injuries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Injury in America: A continuing public health problem. Committee on trauma research, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1985.
3. Honkanen R.Finnish Accident Registration Project (FARP). Publications of the National Board of Health in Finland, No 50, Helsinki, 1984.
4.
4. International classification of diseases, Volume 1, 1975 Revision. World health Organization, Geneva, 1977.
5.
5. Nordisk Medicinal-Statistisk Kommittcc: Nordisk klassification til brug i ulykkesregistrering. 56 s. Rapport nr. 20, København, 1984.
6.
6. McLain PW, Pollock DA.A microcomputer program for coding external cause of injury. J Trauma1989; 29: 55–8.
7.
7. Classifications of unintentional injuries 1989. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Stockholm, 1989.
8.
8. Mönkkönen R, Poikonen M, Honkanen R.Realibility of statistical indicators for nonfatal injuries (Finnish with English summary). Publications of the University of Kuopio, Community Health, Statistics and Reviews 1/1989, Kuopio, 1989.
9.
9. Honkanen R, Michelsson J-E.Construction of the computerized accident registration system in a casualty department. Scand J Soc Med1980; 33–8.
