Abstract
Advances in computer technology have now made it possible to code diseases and operations by computer as compared to the present manual system. In this study the speed and accuracy of a computerised coding system (3M Codefinder) was compared with the manual method on a sample of 90 medical records processed by two senior Medical Record Administrators (MRAs) with similar coding experience. The computer method took an average of 20.9 seconds longer to code a record than the manual method. A review of disease and operation codes indicated that both coders had an error rate of around 20%. Errors were mainly due to the coder's judgement, which resulted in under-coding or incorrect coding. However, a small proportion of computer coder's errors were caused by software problems, the most common being inconsistent prompting for the Place of Occurrence Code. Thus, the manual method has a moderate speed advantage over the computer while being comparable in terms of accuracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.