Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2015; 32(05): 475-480
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1390351
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Utility of ICD9-CM Codes in Identifying Induction of Labor

Lisa D. Levine
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal and Child Health Research Program, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Meghana Limaye
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal and Child Health Research Program, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Sindhu K. Srinivas
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal and Child Health Research Program, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 June 2014

05 August 2014

Publication Date:
28 September 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Data evaluating the accuracy of ICD9-CM codes in identifying inductions are limited. Our objective was to examine the test characteristics of ICD9-CM coding for induction of labor and to identify differences between those captured by coding and those not.

Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of ICD9-CM codes in identifying charts of induced women at our institution from 2005 to 2009. Review of the medical record was the gold standard. Characteristics of the charts were compared using Mann–Whitney U tests and chi-square tests where appropriate.

Results A total of 3,263 women were included, 708 with ICD9-CM coding for induction (screen positive). A total of 422 women were randomly sampled from those not coded as induction (screen negative). The sensitivity of ICD9-CM coding for induction was 51.4%, specificity 98.8%, positive predictive value 96.6%, negative predictive value 74.7%. False negative charts (25%) were more likely to be women induced for premature rupture of membranes (40% versus 8%, p < 0.001) or with oxytocin (51% versus 33%, p < 0.001) when compared with screen positive charts.

Conclusions It is reassuring that 97% of charts coded for induction by ICD9-CM codes are, in fact, patients that were induced. With this degree of accuracy, we can be confident that charts coded as induction are unlikely to be miscoded.

Keywords

accuracy - coding - ICD9 - induction of labor
 

  • References

  • 1 Janakiraman V, Ecker J. Quality in obstetric care: measuring what matters. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (3) 728-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Perinatal Care Core Measure Set. http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/Perinatal%20Care.pdf . Retrieved December 1, 2013
    PubMed
  • 3 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm.htm . Updated 2013. Retrieved November 24, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 O'Malley KJ, Cook KF, Price MD, Wildes KR, Hurdle JF, Ashton CM. Measuring diagnoses: ICD code accuracy. Health Serv Res 2005; 40 (5, Pt 2) 1620-1639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Scholes D, Yu O, Raebel MA, Trabert B, Holt VL. Improving automated case finding for ectopic pregnancy using a classification algorithm. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (11) 3163-3168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brubaker L, Bradley CS, Handa VL , et al. Anal sphincter laceration at vaginal delivery: is this event coded accurately?. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (5) 1141-1145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Henry OA, Gregory KD, Hobel CJ, Platt LD. Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: agreement with clinical records. Am J Public Health 1995; 85 (8, Pt 1) 1143-1146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Geller SE, Ahmed S, Brown ML, Cox SM, Rosenberg D, Kilpatrick SJ. International Classification of Diseases-9th revision coding for preeclampsia: how accurate is it?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190 (6) 1629-1633 , discussion 1633–1634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Romano PS, Yasmeen S, Schembri ME, Keyzer JM, Gilbert WM. Coding of perineal lacerations and other complications of obstetric care in hospital discharge data. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (4) 717-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Goff SL, Pekow PS, Markenson G, Knee A, Chasan-Taber L, Lindenauer PK. Validity of using ICD-9-CM codes to identify selected categories of obstetric complications, procedures and co-morbidities. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2012; 26 (5) 421-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Schembri ME, Keyzer JM, Gilbert WM. Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194 (4) 992-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Roberts CL, Bell JC, Ford JB, Morris JM. Monitoring the quality of maternity care: how well are labour and delivery events reported in population health data?. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2009; 23 (2) 144-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lydon-Rochelle MT, Holt VL, Nelson JC , et al. Accuracy of reporting maternal in-hospital diagnoses and intrapartum procedures in Washington State linked birth records. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2005; 19 (6) 460-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Martin J, Hamilton B, Sutton P , et al. Births: Final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009; 57: 1-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Levine LD, Bogner H, Hirshberg A, Elovitz MA, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. Term induction of labor and subsequent preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; ; [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 ICD-10 Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/index.html?redirect=/icd10/ . Updated 2013. Retrieved August 18, 2013
    PubMed