Use of Read codes in diabetes management in a south London primary care group: implications for establishing disease registers
- PMID: 12763987
- PMCID: PMC156011
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1130
Use of Read codes in diabetes management in a south London primary care group: implications for establishing disease registers
Abstract
Objective: To establish current practice in the use of Read codes for diabetes.
Design: Cross sectional study.
Setting: 17 practices in the Battersea primary care group in southwest London.
Data sources: Computerised medical records.
Main outcome measures: Number of codes in use in all practices; variation in the use of codes between practices; and prevalence of Read code use in diabetic patients.
Results: At least 9 separate Read code groupings and 25 individual diabetes codes were in use in the 17 general practices. Only one Read code (C10, diabetes mellitus) and its subcodes was being used in all 17 practices, but its use varied from 14% to 98% of patients with diabetes. The use of other key Read codes for monitoring the care of patients with diabetes also varied widely between practices; for example, < 20% of practices used the code for the location of care. Less than half of patients (45%) with diabetes had their type of diabetes coded, and even fewer (21%) had measures such as the examination of the retina coded.
Conclusions: The use of Read codes for diabetes needs to be standardised and coding levels improved if valid diabetic registers are to be constructed and the quality of care is to be monitored effectively. Until all patients with diabetes have the C10 Read code recorded, clinicians will have to use a wide range of Read codes and prescribing data to ensure that diabetes registers are complete.
Figures
Comment in
-
Why clinical information standards matter.BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1101-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1101. BMJ. 2003. PMID: 12763958 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice.BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1127. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1127. BMJ. 2003. PMID: 12763986 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
The London low emission zone baseline study.Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2011 Nov;(163):3-79. Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2011. PMID: 22315924
-
Documentation and coding of ED patient encounters: an evaluation of the accuracy of an electronic medical record.Am J Emerg Med. 2006 Oct;24(6):664-78. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.02.005. Am J Emerg Med. 2006. PMID: 16984834
-
Are there disparities in care in people with diabetes? A review of care provided in general practice.J Prim Health Care. 2009 Sep;1(3):177-83. J Prim Health Care. 2009. PMID: 20690380 Review.
-
Quality of morbidity coding in general practice computerized medical records: a systematic review.Fam Pract. 2004 Aug;21(4):396-412. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh409. Fam Pract. 2004. PMID: 15249528 Review.
Cited by
-
Dental consultations in UK general practice and antibiotic prescribing rates: a retrospective cohort study.Br J Gen Pract. 2016 May;66(646):e329-36. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X684757. Epub 2016 Mar 29. Br J Gen Pract. 2016. PMID: 27025554 Free PMC article.
-
Why clinical information standards matter.BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1101-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1101. BMJ. 2003. PMID: 12763958 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Lessons from the central Hampshire electronic health record pilot project: evaluation of the electronic health record for supporting patient care and secondary analysis.BMJ. 2004 Apr 10;328(7444):875-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7444.875. BMJ. 2004. PMID: 15073071 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Effect of the quality and outcomes framework on diabetes care in the United Kingdom: retrospective cohort study.BMJ. 2009 May 26;338:b1870. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1870. BMJ. 2009. PMID: 19474024 Free PMC article.
-
The effects of pay for performance on disparities in stroke, hypertension, and coronary heart disease management: interrupted time series study.PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e27236. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027236. Epub 2011 Dec 15. PLoS One. 2011. PMID: 22194781 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Newnham A, Ryan R, Khunti K, Majeed A. Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes mellitus in general practice in England and Wales, 1994 to 1998. Health Statistics Quarterly 2002;14:5-13. Available at www.statistics.gov.uk/
-
- Gatling W, Budd S, Walters D, Mullee MA, Goddard JR, Hill RD. Evidence of an increasing prevalence of diagnosed diabetes mellitus in the Poole area from 1983 to 1996. Diabet Med 15;1998: 1015-21. - PubMed
-
- Amos AF, McCarty DJ, Zimmet P. The rising global burden of diabetes and its complications: estimates and projections to the year 2010. Diabet Med 1997;14(suppl): S1-85. - PubMed
-
- Laing SP, Swerdlow AJ, Slater SD, Botha JL, Burden AC, Waugh NR, et al. The British Diabetic Association cohort study, I: all-cause mortality in people with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 1999;16: 459-65. - PubMed
-
- Currie CJ, Kraus D, Morgan CL, Gill L, Stott NC, Peters JR. NHS acute sector expenditure for diabetes: the present, future, and excess in-patient cost of care. Diabet Med 1997:14: 686-92. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical