Is it administratively simpler to use the same disease classification for administrative transactions and for statistical reporting?
We believe that it is indeed administratively less burdensome and simpler to use one system. It is always preferable to have one set of rules and guidelines to remember and apply. Administrative difficulties arise when various healthcare entities invoke the latitude of deciding what will be considered acceptable for their organization. Further, it seems that the lines between reporting health data for administrative transactions (payment?), statistical reporting and other uses (outcomes measurement; public health reporting) are, at best, not always clearly demarcated and, at times, quite fuzzy. If a user would have to label the use for which data were reported and then figure out which classification system he/she needed to use, administratively speaking things would be messy, burdensome and not well defined. Question 5 – What are the impact on and implications for current (and emerging) medical/clinical classification systems as we migrate towards computer-based patient records (cpr)?
Related Questions
- Is it administratively simpler to use the same disease classification for administrative transactions and for statistical reporting?
- Is it simpler to use same disease classification for administrative and statistical reporting?
- Which international classification of disease (ICD) revision was used to report the data?
