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
-
Management of vascular risk in people with multiple sclerosis at the time of diagnosis in England: A population-based study.Mult Scler. 2023 May;29(6):671-679. doi: 10.1177/13524585231164296. Epub 2023 Apr 7. Mult Scler. 2023. PMID: 37029503 Free PMC article.
-
Recording of patients' mental health and quality of life-related outcomes in primary care: a cross-sectional study in the UK.BMJ Open. 2022 Dec 22;12(12):e066949. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066949. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 36549724 Free PMC article.
-
Variations in comorbidity burden in people with type 2 diabetes over disease duration: A population-based analysis of real world evidence.EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Aug 1;52:101584. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101584. eCollection 2022 Oct. EClinicalMedicine. 2022. PMID: 35942273 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical code usage in UK general practice: a cohort study exploring 18 conditions over 14 years.BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 25;12(7):e051456. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051456. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 35879012 Free PMC article.
-
Using primary care databases for addiction research: An introduction and overview of strengths and weaknesses.Addict Behav Rep. 2022 Jan 13;15:100407. doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2022.100407. eCollection 2022 Jun. Addict Behav Rep. 2022. PMID: 35111898 Free PMC article. Review.
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