IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/19958581143-1146_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: Agreement with clinical records

Author

Listed:
  • Henry, O.A.
  • Gregory, K.D.
  • Hobel, C.J.
  • Platt, L.D.

Abstract

Aggregate databases arc increasingly being used to evaluate appropriateness of care, and, for cesarean sections, Anderson and Lomas' International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9), coding hierarchy is a widely used tool. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the hierarchy and expand its applicability to repeat cesareans. Hospital records of 1885 singleton cesareans were reviewed. Clinical indications and ICD-9 hierarchical codes were concordant for 83% of primary and 86% of repeat cesareans; modification allowed elective repeat cesareans to be distinguished from indicated procedures. The Anderson and Lomas ICD-9 hierarchy is a valid tool for assessing indications for cesarean. The current modification improves its clinical utility and expands its application to repeat procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry, O.A. & Gregory, K.D. & Hobel, C.J. & Platt, L.D., 1995. "Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: Agreement with clinical records," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 85(8), pages 1143-1146.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1995:85:8:1143-1146_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aoife Brick & Richard Layte, 2011. "Exploring Trends in the Rate of Caesarean Section in Ireland 1999-2007," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 42(4), pages 383-406.
    2. Seth Freedman & Noah Hammarlund, 2019. "Electronic medical records and medical procedure choice: Evidence from cesarean sections," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(10), pages 1179-1193, October.
    3. David Card & Alessandra Fenizia & David Silver, 2019. "The Health Impacts of Hospital Delivery Practices," NBER Working Papers 25986, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Brick, Aoife & Layte, Richard, 2009. "Recent Trends in the Caesarean Section Rate in Ireland 1999-2006," Papers WP309, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    5. Erin M. Johnson & M. Marit Rehavi, 2016. "Physicians Treating Physicians: Information and Incentives in Childbirth," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 115-141, February.
    6. Epstein, Andrew J. & Nicholson, Sean, 2009. "The formation and evolution of physician treatment styles: An application to cesarean sections," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1126-1140, December.
    7. Andrew J. Epstein & Jonathan D. Ketcham & Sean Nicholson, 2010. "Specialization and matching in professional services firms," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 811-834, December.
    8. Ambar La Forgia, 2023. "The Impact of Management on Clinical Performance: Evidence from Physician Practice Management Companies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4646-4667, August.
    9. Andrew Epstein & Jonathan D. Ketcham & Sean Nicholson, 2008. "Professional Partnerships and Matching in Obstetrics," NBER Working Papers 14070, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Darren Grant, 2005. "Information and sorting in the market for obstetrical services," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 703-719, July.
    11. Grytten, Jostein & Skau, Irene & Sørensen, Rune, 2011. "Do expert patients get better treatment than others? Agency discrimination and statistical discrimination in obstetrics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 163-180, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1995:85:8:1143-1146_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.