Primary care health professionals’ approach to clinical coding: a qualitative interview study

Aled Huw Davies; Haroon Ahmed; Tracey Thomas-Wood; Fiona Wood

doi:10.3399/BJGP.2024.0036

Published eLetters

eLetter submission guidelines

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose eLetter

Title *

Author Information

Contributors

First Name and Middle Initial *

First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.

Last Name *

Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.

Email Address *

Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com. PLEASE NOTE: your email address will be published.

Occupation *

Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.

Affiliation *

Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

Primary care health professionals’ approach to clinical coding: a qualitative interview study
Peter G. Davies

Published on: 05 August 2024

Published on: (5 August 2024)
Page navigation anchor for Primary care health professionals’ approach to clinical coding: a qualitative interview study
Primary care health professionals’ approach to clinical coding: a qualitative interview study
Peter G. Davies, GP, Semi-retired, writing personally. Working 2 days a week at Local Care Direct, West Yorkshire
Thank you for this article which explores the topic of coding in medical records. I think there are deeper conceptual problems with coding than we realise.

Firstly, coding is categorical, not probabilistic or Bayesian. Our structure of thought as GPs is Bayesian- we are trying to work out what is most likely given the medical and social background and the current symptoms. Our conclusions are often tentative, and diagnosing and confidently naming skin rashes is an obvious example here. Especially as they can easily alter over time, and we then may need to revise our thinking.

For coding to become easier could I suggest that we could have symptom codes, examination finding codes and diagnosis codes? For diagnosis codes we should be able to indicate (estimate) our degree of confidence in our diagnosis. It would be high when we have histology and scan results, or very clear symptoms or signs (e.g. a clear shingles rash) It would be proportionately less when we are seeing a non-specific but likely viral rash.

Also, could codes be properly time bound? For example, an episode of anxiety coded many years ago is not evidence of a current ongoing problem. However, an insurance company or occupational review might pick up the code and assume it's a current issue. The code can become the reality, rather than a reflection of the reality it was summarising.

Coding is very important and very useful, but it's also potentially awkward and misleading...
Show More

Thank you for this article which explores the topic of coding in medical records. I think there are deeper conceptual problems with coding than we realise.

Firstly, coding is categorical, not probabilistic or Bayesian. Our structure of thought as GPs is Bayesian- we are trying to work out what is most likely given the medical and social background and the current symptoms. Our conclusions are often tentative, and diagnosing and confidently naming skin rashes is an obvious example here. Especially as they can easily alter over time, and we then may need to revise our thinking.

For coding to become easier could I suggest that we could have symptom codes, examination finding codes and diagnosis codes? For diagnosis codes we should be able to indicate (estimate) our degree of confidence in our diagnosis. It would be high when we have histology and scan results, or very clear symptoms or signs (e.g. a clear shingles rash) It would be proportionately less when we are seeing a non-specific but likely viral rash.

Also, could codes be properly time bound? For example, an episode of anxiety coded many years ago is not evidence of a current ongoing problem. However, an insurance company or occupational review might pick up the code and assume it's a current issue. The code can become the reality, rather than a reflection of the reality it was summarising.

Coding is very important and very useful, but it's also potentially awkward and misleading. It's hard to revise if the presentation evolves over time. Could we have a more subtle and less categorical system of coding? One that goes with the grain of the structure of medical thinking, rather than imposing categories over fluidity?
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.