The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review of discharge coding accuracy
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to review systematically the literature measuring the accuracy of routine UK hospital statistics that classify patients on discharge. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out of studies comparing routine discharge statistics about an episode of hospital care with the original medical record. Dual quality assessment and extraction was completed for included studies. Qualitative and descriptive analyses were undertaken. Additional comparisons of factors that could potentially introduce systematic variation in coding accuracy were also undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty studies were identified, of which 21 were included in the review. Twelve of these were conducted in England and Wales, and nine in Scotland. The majority assessed the accuracy of a single diagnosis, or selection of diagnoses in a limited range of hospital settings. The median coding accuracy rates were 91 per cent for diagnostic codes and 69.5 per cent for operation or procedure codes in studies in England or Wales; 82 per cent for diagnostic codes and 98 per cent for operation or procedure codes in Scottish studies. There were no significant differences in coding accuracy over time or in the type or rarity of the codes being assessed. Accuracy rates were higher for ICD7 codes (median 96.5 per cent) than for ICD8 (median 87 per cent) or ICD9 (median 77 per cent). CONCLUSIONS: Coding accuracy on average is high in the United Kingdom, especially for operations and procedures. However, policy-makers, planners and researchers need to recognize and account for the degree of inaccuracy in routine hospital information statistics. Further research is needed into methods of improving and maintaining coding accuracy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal: A Handbook for Health Care Professionals
Crombie, I. (1996) · BMJ Publishing Group eBooks · Cited by 254
The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal
Pope, G. (1997) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/s0031-9406(05)66224-4 · Cited by 173
Dixon, J., Sanderson, C., Elliott, P., Walls, P., Jones, J., & Petticrew, M. (1998) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024721 · Cited by 159
Quality of Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR) data.
Harley, K., & Jones, C. (1996) · PubMed · Cited by 108
Accuracy of hospital activity analysis operation codes.
Whates, P. D., Birzgalis, A. R., & Irving, M. H. (1982) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.284.6332.1857 · Cited by 58
Rees, J. L. (1982) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.284.6332.1856 · Cited by 55
The Quality of Diagnostic Coding in Cerebrovascular Disease
Hasan, M., Meara, R. J., & Bhowmick, B. K. (1995) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/7.4.407 · Cited by 24
Audit of the quality of hospital discharge data.
Pears, J. S., Alexander, A., Gf, A., & Nr, W. (1992) · PubMed · Cited by 24
(1973) · International Journal of Bio-Medical Computing · doi:10.1016/0020-7101(73)90008-1 · Cited by 16
Book Review: Hospital Activity Analysis
Campbell, R. M. (1973) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/003591577306600848 · Cited by 15
Cited by
Dombrovskiy, V. Y., Martin, A. A., Sunderram, J., & Paz, H. L. (2007) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000261890.41311.e9 · Cited by 1,249
Purdy, S., Griffin, T., Salisbury, C., & Sharp, D. (2009) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2008.11.001 · Cited by 607
Smolina, K., Wright, F. L., Rayner, M., & Goldacre, M. J. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d8059 · Cited by 384
Surgery for Gallstone Ileus: A Nationwide Comparison of Trends and Outcomes
Halabi, W. J., Kang, C. Y., Ketana, N., Lafaro, K. J., Nguyen, V. Q., Stamos, M. J., Imagawa, D. K., & Demirjian, A. N. (2014) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31827eefed · Cited by 276
Assessing the Accuracy of Administrative Data in Health Information Systems
Peabody, J. W., Luck, J., Jain, S., Bertenthal, D., & Glassman, P. (2004) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200411000-00005 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Campbell, S. E., Campbell, M. K., Grimshaw, J. M., & Walker, A. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-09-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 205-211
- ISSN
- 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3842
- 1741-3850
- OpenAlex
- W2138721673
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 1.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pubmed/23.3.205
- The paper
- Campbell, S. E., Campbell, M. K., Grimshaw, J. M., & Walker, A. E. (2001). A systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/23.3.205
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.