Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

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

Campbell, S. E., Campbell, M. K., Grimshaw, J. M., Walker, A. E.·2001·Journal of Public Health

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pubmed/23.3.205

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Campbell, S. E., Campbell, M. K., Grimshaw, J. M., & Walker, A. E.
Venue
Journal of Public Health
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.