Search

Purpose Accurate International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis coding is critical for patient care, billing purposes, and research endeavors. In this single-institution study, we evaluated our baseline ICD-9 (9th revision) diagnosis coding accuracy, identified the most common errors contributing to inaccurate coding, and implemented a multimodality strategy to improve radiation oncology coding. Methods and materials We prospectively studied ICD-9 coding accuracy in our radiation therapy--specific electronic medical record system. Baseline ICD-9 coding accuracy was obtained from chart review targeting ICD-9 coding accuracy of all patients treated at our institution between March and June of 2010. To improve performance an educational session highlighted common coding errors, and a user-friendly software tool, RadOnc ICD Search, version 1.0, for coding radiation oncology specific diagnoses was implemented. We then prospectively analyzed ICD-9 coding accuracy for all patients treated from July 2010 to June 2011, with the goal of maintaining 80% or higher coding accuracy. Data on coding accuracy were analyzed and fed back monthly to individual providers. Results Baseline coding accuracy for physicians was 463 of 661 (70%) cases. Only 46% of physicians had coding accuracy above 80%. The most common errors involved metastatic cases, whereby primary or secondary site ICD-9 codes were either incorrect or missing, and special procedures such as stereotactic radiosurgery cases. After implementing our project, overall coding accuracy rose to 92% (range, 86%-96%). The median accuracy for all physicians was 93% (range, 77%‐100%) with only 1 attending having accuracy below 80%. Incorrect primary and secondary ICD-9 codes in metastatic cases showed the most significant improvement (10% vs 2% after intervention). Conclusions Identifying common coding errors and implementing both education and systems changes led to significantly improved coding accuracy. This quality assurance project highlights the potential problem of ICD-9 coding accuracy by physicians and offers an approach to effectively address this shortcoming.

Purpose The American College of Radiology (ACR) Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation (ROPA) program has accredited more than 600 sites since 2006, including practices within academic, hospital-based, and freestanding settings. The purpose of this report is to evaluate and compare patterns of change in common deficiencies over time. Methods and materials The ACR database was queried to analyze the common deficiencies noted by the ACR ROPA program between 2012 and 2014. Deficiencies were ranked and compared to the top 10 items that were reported in 2006. Results Between 2012 and 2014, 272 new applications and 306 renewals were received. Timely verification of port films, documentation of physician peer review, inclusion of essential elements of a treatment prescription, evidence of a final physicist chart review, documentation of weekly treatment visits, and inclusion of key elements of brachytherapy documentation all improved when compared with 2000-2005. Deficiencies ranked higher on the current review compared with the previous analysis included documentation of a robust quality assurance program, missing elements from the history and physical documentation, and documentation of follow-up visits. Conclusions Our analysis of changes in patterns of deficiencies across radiation oncology practices reflects changes in our field such as the growing reliance on electronic records and imaging. Accreditation continues to play an integral role in establishing national standards and a nonpunitive, peer-reviewed method to evaluate a practice's compliance with national quality guidelines.