A Methodological Framework for the Conversion of Procedure Classifications

Summary

Objectives: During the adaptation of the Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups for Germany mapping tables between procedure classifications were needed. The mapping between the German OPS-301 2.0 and the Australian MBS-Extended should transfer the Australian expertise by keeping a well-established terminology system.

Methods: A methodological framework for the development of mapping tables had been developed based on the model for representation of semantics provided by the European Committee of Standardization. Two approaches were used; the concept-based approach from OPS-301 2.0 to MBS-Extended and the class-based approach the other way round. A conversion had to be identified between 23,160 classes of the OPS-301 2.0 and 6,328 classes of the MBS-Extended in two asymmetrical mapping tables.

Results: The class-based approach leads to a low number of 6,980 conversions but misses 82.6% of the classes of the OPS-301. Because of domain incongruencies and missing domain completeness of the OPS-301 2.0 for non-operative procedures 15.7% of the MBS-Extended-classes remain without conversion. The concept-based approach leads to a slightly higher mean number of conversions per class of 1.35 in comparison to 1.31 with the class-based approach. But it was possible to find conversions for 99.5% of the OPS-301 2.0-classes. 16.3% of the DRG-relevant classes of the MBS-Extended were missed.

Conclusions: The class-based approach was not useful, because the MBS-Extended is significantly broader than the OPS-301 2.0. An external validation study for the direction OPS-301 2.0 to MBS-Extended revealed a satisfactory quality. The empirical and the reference-based approach are important alternatives to the ones used in this project. There are clear criteria about the appropriate application area for the methodological approaches presented here.

Keywords

Classification - diagnosis-related groups - mapping - procedures - terminology

• References

• 1 Campbell JR, Carpenter P, Sneiderman C, Cohn S, Chute CG. Warren J for CPRI Work Group on Codes and Structures. Phase II Evaluation of Clinical Coding Schemes: Completeness, Taxonomy, Mapping, Definitions, and Clarity. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4: 238-51.
• 2 Carlsson M, Rogers J, Åhlfeldt H. Aggregation and reclassification – Assessment of GALEN methods in the domain of thoracic surgery. In. Lorenzi NM. (ed). AMIA 1999 Annual Symposium. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus; 1999: 32-6.
• 3 Elkin PL, Brown SH. Automated enhancement of description logic-defined terminologies to facilitate mapping to ICD9-CM. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2002; 35: 281-8.
• 4 Elkin PL, Brown SH, Carter J, Bauer BA, Wahner- Roedler D, Bergstrom L, Pittelkow M, Rosse C. Guideline and quality indicators for development, purchase and use of controlled health vocabularies. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2002; 68: 175-86.
• 5 European Committee for Standardization. Health informatics – Categorial structure for classifications and coding systems of surgical procedures. EN 1828. Brussels: 2002
• 6 European Committee for Standardization. Medical Informatics – Categorical structures of systems of concepts – Model for representation of semantics. European prestandard. January. Brussels: 1995
• 7 Ingenerf J, Giere W. Concept-oriented Standardization and Statistics-oriented Classification: Continuing the Classification vs. Nomenclatures Controversy. Meth Inform Med 1998; 37: 527-39.
• 8 Irps S, Müller M, Roeder N. Die Uni Münster stellt ihre Mappingtabelle ins Internet. f&w – Führen und Wirtschaften im Krankenhaus 2002; 19: 608-10.
• 9 ISO. Health informatics – Controlled health vocabularies – Vocabulary structure and high-level indicators. Technical specification. ISO/DTS 17117. 1999
• 10 Lindberg DAB, Humphreys BL, McCray AT. The Unified Medical Language System. In. van Bemmel JH, McCray AT. (eds). Yearbook of Medical Informatics 93. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 1993: 41-51.
• 11 Masarie FE, Miller RA, Bouhaddou O, Giuse NB, Warner HR. An Interlingua for Electronic Interchange of Medical Information: Using Frames to Map between Clinical Vocabularies. Computers and Biomedical Research 1991; 24: 370-400.
• 12 Scully KW, Middleton CL, Pates RD, Einbinder JS. Grouping ICD-9-CM and CPT Procedure Codes into a Common Clustering Standard. In. Bakken S. (ed). Proceedings 2001 AMIA Symposium. Philadelphi: Hanley & Belfus; 2001: 1025.
• 13 Stausberg J, Lang H, Obertacke U, Rauhut F. Classifications in Routine Use: Lessons from ICD-9 and ICPM in Surgical Practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001; 8: 92-100.
• 14 Thurmayr GR, Thurmayr R. Umsetzung des deutschen Operationenschlüssels (OPS-301-V2.1) in den australischen (ICD-10AM-V4.1, Procedures) mit SNOMED-V2. Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie 2002; 33: 101.
• 15 Wang AY, Barrett JW, Bentley T, Markwell D, Price C, Spackmann KA, Stearns MQ. Mapping Between SNOMED RT and Clinical Terms Version 3: A Key Component of the SNOMED CT Development Process. In. Bakken S. (ed). Proceedings 2001 AMIA Symposium. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus; 2001: 741-5.
• 16 Ziegler S. Validierung des Mappings im Rahmen der DRG-Einführung – Teil 1. Ergebnisse der Auswertung. 12. 4. 2001. (unpublished).