Validity of anaesthetic complication coding data as a clinical indicatorAndrew Jones A , John P. Monagle A B , Susan Peel A , Matthew W. Coghlan A , Vangy Malkoutzis A and Andrea Groom A
A Southern Health, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
B Corresponding author. Email: email@example.com
Australian Health Review 36(2) 229-232 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH11004
Submitted: 2 February 2011 Accepted: 14 September 2011 Published: 25 May 2012
Clinical indicators using routinely collected International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Australian Modification (ICD–10–AM) data offer promise as tools for improvement of quality. The ICD–10–AM is the coding system used by Australian administrators to summarise information from the clinical record to describe a patient’s hospital encounter. The use of anaesthesia complications as coded by this system has been proposed by two jurisdictions as a monitor of the quality of anaesthetic services.
We undertook a review of cases identified by such indicators in a large tertiary hospital. Our results indicate the anaesthesia indicator dataset proposed by the Victorian and Queensland Health departments appears to have little clinical or quality improvement relevance.
What is known about the topic? Quality assurance relies on reviewing performance, highlighting issues and eliminating or minimising the identified risks. Case or risk identification in the medical arena relies heavily on self reporting, which has many flaws. A system not dependent on self reporting that was reliable would be a positive development in the pursuit of quality improvement.
What does this paper add? ICD-AM-10 coding was used to identify complications attributable to anaesthesia as defined by the coding system. The cases identified were then reviewed for the clinical accuracy of this information. The clinical coding was accurate, but the clinical case load so identified did not accurately reflect real incidents of anaesthesia-related complications. The ICD AM 10 codes, as they relate to anaesthesia complications, do not provide a reliable method of identifying cases that contribute to anaesthetic quality assurance activities.
What are the implications for practitioners? Anaesthesia quality assurance continues to be dependent on self reporting of relevant cases. Coded data do not provide an adequate substitute for the self reporting mechanisms.
References Lee A, Lum ME. Measuring anaesthetic outcomes. Anaesth Intensive Care 1996; 24 685–93.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK2s7is1CjsQ%3D%3D&md5=d5332e5a121560ff4890660da61b234aCAS | 8971318PubMed |
 Haller G, Stoelwinder J, Myles P, McNeil J. Quality and safety indicators in anaesthesia: a systemic review. Anaesthesiology 2009; 110 1158–75.
| Quality and safety indicators in anaesthesia: a systemic review.CrossRef |
 Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Small SD, Nemeskal AR, Leape LL. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1995; 21 541–8.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK287it1altA%3D%3D&md5=fc42972904e109b85c76ec818ae462b0CAS | 8556111PubMed |
 MediLexicon Medical Dictionary. Clinical indicators. Available at http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php [verified 9 May 2012].
 Clinical indicators and the RACGP. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners position statement on clinical indicators. Endorsed by 51st RACGP council 5 May 2009. Available at http://www.racgp.org.au/policy/clinicalindicators [Verified 2 September 2010].
 WHO website. Available at http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online [Verified 7 August 2010].
 Duckett SJ, Coory M. Sketcher–Baker K. Identifying variations in quality of care in Queensland hospitals. Med J Aust 2007; 187 571–5.
| 18021046PubMed |
 AHRQ website. Available at http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/listserv [Verified 17 April 2010].
 CDC website. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm [Verified 20 October 2010].
 Dawson B, Trapp R. Basic and clinical biostatistics. Foltin J, Lebowitz H eds, 4th edn. New York: McGrawHill Companies Inc.; 2004
 McNicol L, Mackay P. Anaesthetic-related morbidity in Victoria, a report from 1990 – 2005. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010; 38 837–48.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3cfkvFOmtg%3D%3D&md5=1be243d7f36d0f477bd3daff369a0e8dCAS | 20865867PubMed |
 Frank M, Radtke FM, Apfel C, et al Documentation of PONV in routine clinical practice. J Int Med Res 2010; 38 1034–41.
 Jackson K, Ashby M, Goodchild C. Subanaesthetic ketamine for cancer pain: by insisting on level I/II evidence, do we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater? J Pain Symptom Manage 2005; 29 328–30.
| Subanaesthetic ketamine for cancer pain: by insisting on level I/II evidence, do we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater?CrossRef | 15857732PubMed |
 Good P, Tullio F, Jackson K, Goodchild C, Ashby M. Prospective audit of short term concurrent ketamine, opioid and anti-inflammatory (‘triple agent’) therapy for episodes of acute on chronic pain. Intern Med J 2005; 35 39–44.
| Prospective audit of short term concurrent ketamine, opioid and anti-inflammatory (‘triple agent’) therapy for episodes of acute on chronic pain.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXit1Ors78%3D&md5=7c677cddf744babfce0f807114172a14CAS | 15667467PubMed |
 Yu H, Greenberg M, Haviland A, Farley D. “Canary measures” among the AHRQ patient safety indicators. Am J Med Qual 2009; 24 465–73.
| “Canary measures” among the AHRQ patient safety indicators.CrossRef | 19696232PubMed |