The aim of this study was to determine the influence of a dedicated training course on the ability of participants to assign correct codes and their inter-observer agreement using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS98). Twelve participants followed a one-day training course in injury coding. Codes were recorded before, during and after the course. The number of correctly assigned codes and severity codes, as well as the Fleiss' kappas improved significantly during and after the course. This study emphasises the benefit of training in injury coding. Training improves the ability to assign correct codes and it reduces inter-observer variability. We advise all who are involved in injury coding to follow a dedicated training course.
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (1998). The Abbreviated Injury Scale 1990 revision 1998 update. IL, Barrington.
2.
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (2008). The Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005 - Update 2008. IL, Barrington.
3.
BakerS.R.O'NeillB.HaddonW.Jr.LongW.B. (1974). The injury severity score: A method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. Journal of Trauma14: 187–196.
4.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement20: 37–46.
5.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Automotive Safety (1971). Rating the severity of tissue damage. I. The abbreviated scale. Journal of the American Medical Association215: 277–280.
6.
FleissJ.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin76: 378–382.
7.
GennarelliT.A.WodzinE. (2006). AIS 2005: A contemporary injury scale. Injury37: 1083–1091.
8.
LandisJ.R.KochG.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33: 159–174.
9.
LeoneM.A.GavianiRCicconeG. (2006). Inter-coder agreement for ICD-9-CM coding of stroke. Neurological Sciences27: 445–448.
10.
MacKenzieE.GartheE.A.GibsonG. (1978). Evaluating the abbreviated injury scale. Proceedings of the American Association for Automotive Medicine22: 55.
11.
MacKenzieE.J.ShapiroS.EasthamJ.N. (1985). The Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Score. Levels of inter- and intrarater reliability. Medical Care23: 823–835.
MooreL.ClarkD.E. (2008). The value of trauma registries. Injury39: 686–695.
14.
NealeR.RokkasRMcClureR.J. (2003). Interrater reliability of injury coding in the Queensland Trauma Registry. Emergency Medicine (Fremantle)15: 38–41.
15.
O'ReillyG.M.CameronR.A.JoshipuraM. (2012). Global trauma registry mapping: A scoping review. Injury43: 1148–1153.
16.
OslerT.BakerS.P.LongW. (1997). A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. Journal of Trauma43: 922–925.
17.
PalmerC.S.FranklynM.Read-AllsoppC.McLellanS.NiggemeyerL.E. (2011). Development and validation of a complementary map to enhance the existing 1998 to 2008 Abbreviated Injury Scale map. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine19: 29.
18.
Read-AllsoppC. (2004). Establishing inter-rater reliability scoring in a state trauma system. Journal of Trauma Nursing35: 35–39.
19.
SantosS.MurphyG.BaxterK.RobinsonK.M. (2008). Organisational factors affecting the quality of hospital clinical coding. Health Information Management Journal37: 25.
20.
WaydhasC.Nast-KolbD.TrupkaA.Kerim-SadeC.KanzG.ZollerJ.SchweibererL.1992, [Trauma scores: Reproducibility and reliability] [German]. Unfallchirurg95: 67–70.
21.
ZoltieN.de DombalF.T. (1993). The hit and miss of ISS and TRISS. Yorkshire Trauma Audit Group. British Medical Journal307(6909): 906–909.
