International Classification of Diseases clinical coding training: An international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is widely used by clinical coders worldwide for clinical coding morbidity data into administrative health databases. Accordingly, hospital data quality largely depends on the coders' skills acquired during ICD training, which varies greatly across countries. OBJECTIVE: To characterise the current landscape of international ICD clinical coding training. METHOD: An online questionnaire was created to survey the 194 World Health Organization (WHO) member countries. Questions focused on the training provided to clinical coding professionals. The survey was distributed to potential participants who met specific criteria, and to organisations specialised in the topic, such as WHO Collaborating Centres, to be forwarded to their representatives. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Data from 47 respondents from 26 countries revealed disparities in all inquired topics. However, most participants reported clinical coders as the primary person assigning ICD codes. Although training was available in all countries, some did not mandate training qualifications, and those that did differed in type and duration of training, with college or university degree being most common. Clinical coding certificates most frequently entailed passing a certification exam. Most countries offered continuing training opportunities, and provided a range of support resources for clinical coders. CONCLUSION: Variability in clinical coder training could affect data collection worldwide, thus potentially hindering international comparability of health data. IMPLICATIONS: These findings could encourage countries to improve their resources and training programs available for clinical coders and will ultimately be valuable to the WHO for the standardisation of ICD training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".