International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees
| Autor(a) principal: | |
|---|---|
| Data de Publicação: | 2010 |
| Outros Autores: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | por |
| Título da fonte: | Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v26i4.10763 |
Resumo: | Objectives: To determine the ability of Portuguese doctors in the second half of their family medicine residency to code with the International Classification of Primary Care - revised version (ICPC-2). Study design: Cross-sectional. Setting: South of mainland Portugal, Azores e Madeira. Participants: Residents in the 29th and 30th courses of the Family Medicine Residency Coordination of South Portugal. Methods:A convenience sample of 100 residents was contacted by email, and asked to code three clinical vignettes written by the authors. The correct coding of reasons for encounter, diagnoses, and processes was determined by the authors with the help of a national ICPC-2 expert. We made a descriptive analysis of the proportion of correct answers, failures of classification, and most frequent errors. The answers of residents with and without previous training in ICPC-2 usage were compared. Results: The participation rate was 47.0%. 56.5% of reasons for encounter, 75.9% of diagnoses, and 48.8% of processes were correctly classified. Residents frequently coded in excess parts of the visit that are not, by the ICPC-2 definition, reasons for encounter; they frequently left out the code health maintenance/preventive medicine from problems and reasons for encounter; and, in processes, they seldom code the complete and partial medical examination. Residents who had previous training in ICPC-2 usage correctly coded more reasons for encounter (72.3% vs 55.1%) and problems (85.0% vs 74.8%). Conclusion: Residents appear to be better at coding diagnosis than reasons for encounter or processes. Errors in the coding of preventive activities and medical examination are frequent. Residents who had training in ICPC-2 usage had better results in coding of reasons for encounter and problems. |
| id |
RCAP_8c6b9206064f97bb2c9cae01cf674daf |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.rpmgf.pt:article/10763 |
| network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
| network_name_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| repository_id_str |
https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160 |
| spelling |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine traineesCodificação com a classificação internacional de cuidados primários (ICPC) por internos de Medicina Geral e FamiliarClassificaçãoMedicina FamiliarInternato MédicoClassificationFamily PracticeResidencyObjectives: To determine the ability of Portuguese doctors in the second half of their family medicine residency to code with the International Classification of Primary Care - revised version (ICPC-2). Study design: Cross-sectional. Setting: South of mainland Portugal, Azores e Madeira. Participants: Residents in the 29th and 30th courses of the Family Medicine Residency Coordination of South Portugal. Methods:A convenience sample of 100 residents was contacted by email, and asked to code three clinical vignettes written by the authors. The correct coding of reasons for encounter, diagnoses, and processes was determined by the authors with the help of a national ICPC-2 expert. We made a descriptive analysis of the proportion of correct answers, failures of classification, and most frequent errors. The answers of residents with and without previous training in ICPC-2 usage were compared. Results: The participation rate was 47.0%. 56.5% of reasons for encounter, 75.9% of diagnoses, and 48.8% of processes were correctly classified. Residents frequently coded in excess parts of the visit that are not, by the ICPC-2 definition, reasons for encounter; they frequently left out the code health maintenance/preventive medicine from problems and reasons for encounter; and, in processes, they seldom code the complete and partial medical examination. Residents who had previous training in ICPC-2 usage correctly coded more reasons for encounter (72.3% vs 55.1%) and problems (85.0% vs 74.8%). Conclusion: Residents appear to be better at coding diagnosis than reasons for encounter or processes. Errors in the coding of preventive activities and medical examination are frequent. Residents who had training in ICPC-2 usage had better results in coding of reasons for encounter and problems.Objectivos: Determinar a capacidade de médicos na segunda metade do internato em Medicina Geral e Familiar em Portugal para codificar com a Classificação Internacional de Cuidados Primários - segunda edição (ICPC-2). Tipo de estudo: Transversal, analítico. Local: Zonal Sul de Portugal Continental, Açores e Madeira. População: Médicos internos dos 29.º e 30.º cursos da Coordenação de Internato de Medicina Geral e Familiar da Zona Sul. Métodos: Uma amostra de conveniência de 100 internos foi contactada por correio electrónico, sendo-lhes pedido que codificassem as descrições de três consultas elaboradas pelos autores. A codificação correcta dos motivos de consulta, problemas e procedimentos foi determinada pelos autores em colaboração com um perito nacional em ICPC-2. Procedeu-se a uma análise descritiva da proporção de respostas correctas, falhas de classificação e principais erros de codificação observados. Comparam-se as respostas dos internos com e sem formação prévia em ICPC-2. Resultados: A taxa de resposta foi de 47,0%. Foram classificados correctamente 56,5% dos motivos de consulta, 75,9% dos problemas e 48,8% dos procedimentos. Verificou-se que os internos codificaram frequentemente em excesso situações abordadas na consulta que não constituem motivos segundo a definição da ICPC-2; omitiram frequentemente o código «medicina preventiva/manutenção da saúde» dos problemas e motivos de consulta; e, nos procedimentos, raramente foram codificados os exames médicos completo ou parcial realizados na consulta. Os internos que fizeram formação codificaram correctamente mais motivos de consulta (72,3% vs 55,1%) e problemas (85,0% vs 74,8%). Conclusões: Os internos parecem ser melhores na codificação de problemas do que nos motivos de consulta ou procedimentos. São frequentes erros relacionados com a codificação de actividades preventivas e o exame médico. Os internos que fizeram formação específica na utilização da ICPC-2 tiveram melhores resultados na codificação de motivos de consulta e problemas.Associação Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar2010-07-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v26i4.10763https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v26i4.10763Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice; Vol. 26 No. 4 (2010): Revista Portuguesa de Clínica Geral; 370-82Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; Vol. 26 Núm. 4 (2010): Revista Portuguesa de Clínica Geral; 370-82Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; Vol. 26 N.º 4 (2010): Revista Portuguesa de Clínica Geral; 370-822182-51812182-517310.32385/rpmgf.v26i4reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAPporhttps://rpmgf.pt/ojs/index.php/rpmgf/article/view/10763https://rpmgf.pt/ojs/index.php/rpmgf/article/view/10763/10499Pinto, DanielCorte-Real, Susanainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-09-17T11:59:18Zoai:ojs.rpmgf.pt:article/10763Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T18:51:34.113513Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees Codificação com a classificação internacional de cuidados primários (ICPC) por internos de Medicina Geral e Familiar |
| title |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees |
| spellingShingle |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees Pinto, Daniel Classificação Medicina Familiar Internato Médico Classification Family Practice Residency |
| title_short |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees |
| title_full |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees |
| title_fullStr |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees |
| title_full_unstemmed |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees |
| title_sort |
International classification for primary care (ICPC) coding by family medicine trainees |
| author |
Pinto, Daniel |
| author_facet |
Pinto, Daniel Corte-Real, Susana |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Corte-Real, Susana |
| author2_role |
author |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pinto, Daniel Corte-Real, Susana |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Classificação Medicina Familiar Internato Médico Classification Family Practice Residency |
| topic |
Classificação Medicina Familiar Internato Médico Classification Family Practice Residency |
| description |
Objectives: To determine the ability of Portuguese doctors in the second half of their family medicine residency to code with the International Classification of Primary Care - revised version (ICPC-2). Study design: Cross-sectional. Setting: South of mainland Portugal, Azores e Madeira. Participants: Residents in the 29th and 30th courses of the Family Medicine Residency Coordination of South Portugal. Methods:A convenience sample of 100 residents was contacted by email, and asked to code three clinical vignettes written by the authors. The correct coding of reasons for encounter, diagnoses, and processes was determined by the authors with the help of a national ICPC-2 expert. We made a descriptive analysis of the proportion of correct answers, failures of classification, and most frequent errors. The answers of residents with and without previous training in ICPC-2 usage were compared. Results: The participation rate was 47.0%. 56.5% of reasons for encounter, 75.9% of diagnoses, and 48.8% of processes were correctly classified. Residents frequently coded in excess parts of the visit that are not, by the ICPC-2 definition, reasons for encounter; they frequently left out the code health maintenance/preventive medicine from problems and reasons for encounter; and, in processes, they seldom code the complete and partial medical examination. Residents who had previous training in ICPC-2 usage correctly coded more reasons for encounter (72.3% vs 55.1%) and problems (85.0% vs 74.8%). Conclusion: Residents appear to be better at coding diagnosis than reasons for encounter or processes. Errors in the coding of preventive activities and medical examination are frequent. Residents who had training in ICPC-2 usage had better results in coding of reasons for encounter and problems. |
| publishDate |
2010 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2010-07-01 |
| dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v26i4.10763 https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v26i4.10763 |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v26i4.10763 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
| language |
por |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://rpmgf.pt/ojs/index.php/rpmgf/article/view/10763 https://rpmgf.pt/ojs/index.php/rpmgf/article/view/10763/10499 |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice; Vol. 26 No. 4 (2010): Revista Portuguesa de Clínica Geral; 370-82 Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; Vol. 26 Núm. 4 (2010): Revista Portuguesa de Clínica Geral; 370-82 Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; Vol. 26 N.º 4 (2010): Revista Portuguesa de Clínica Geral; 370-82 2182-5181 2182-5173 10.32385/rpmgf.v26i4 reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia instacron:RCAAP |
| instname_str |
FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
| instacron_str |
RCAAP |
| institution |
RCAAP |
| reponame_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| collection |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
info@rcaap.pt |
| _version_ |
1833597710710603776 |