Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Terminology Coding (GET-C): A WHO-Approved Extension of the ICD-10

Technological developments have greatly promoted interest in the use of computer systems for recording findings and images at endoscopy and creating databases. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive WHO-approved code system for gastrointestinal endoscopic terminology. The International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition (ICD-10), and the ICD-10 clinical modification (ICD-10-CM) were expanded to allow description of every possible gastrointestinal endoscopic term under conditions defined by the WHO. Classifications of specific gastrointestinal disorders and endoscopic locations were added. A new chapter was developed for frequently used terminology that could not be classified in the existing ICD-10, such as descriptions of therapeutic procedures. The new extended code system was named Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Terminology Coding (GET-C). The GET-C is a complete ICD-10-related code system that can be used within every endoscopic database program for all specific endoscopic terms. The GET-C is available for free at http://www.trans-it.org/

Incidence of duodenal ulcers and gastric ulcers in a Western population: Back to where it started

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: As recently as 40 years ago, a decline in the incidence of peptic ulcers was observed. The discovery of Helicobacter pylori had a further major impact on the incidence of ulcer disease. Our aim was to evaluate the trends in the incidence and bleeding complications of ulcer disease in the Netherlands

Validation study of automatically generated codes in colonoscopy using the endoscopic report system Endobase

OBJECTIVE: Gastrointestinal endoscopy databases are important for surveillance, epidemiology, quality control and research. A good quality of automatically generated databases to enable drawing justified conclusions based on the data is of key importance. The aim of this study is to validate the correctness of coding of a national automatically generated anonymous endoscopy database. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated a total of 500 colonoscopies performed in five larger hospitals of the TRANS.IT project focusing on endoscopy reporting. Randomly 500 examinations were selected from a total of 5,000 examinations and their generated endoscopic terminology codes as well as complete reports were analysed. Indications for the examination and described findings were scored for correctness and clinical relevance of the coding that would be exported to the anonymous database. RESULTS: Indications were correctly coded in 92% of all examinations (range 76-100%) per hospital. Correct coding of findings ranged from 42% to 93% per hospital (mean 77%). Different correct coding proportions were seen varying with the diagnosis, with the highest correct coding rates in polyps, carcinoma and diverticular disease. Incorrect coded examinations were scored for clinical relevance. Overall 11% of the investigated examinations were incorrectly coded with clinical relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of clinically relevant endoscopy data recorded in the TRANS.IT anonymous central database is high. Further improvement is desirable, which may be achieved by education of individual endoscopists and enhancement of the progra

Awareness of Surveillance Recommendations Among Patients With Colorectal Adenomas

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The efficacy of colorectal cancer screening programs depends on the rate of attendance at surveillance colonoscopy examinations. Increasing patients' awareness about the importance of surveillance might improve attendance, but it is not clear how much they know about their follow-up recommendations. We assessed the awareness of patients with adenomas about their surveillance recommendations. METHODS: Ten endoscopy departments provided access to their colonoscopy database for quality assurance; 2 datasets were obtained. We analyzed data from 4000 colonoscopies (400 per department) performed on patients with adenomas. All the patients were mailed a survey to determine how much information they had about their colonoscopy results and their follow-up recommendations. Data from 549 patients were included in the analysis. We also assessed surveillance attendance among 500 patients (50 per department) who had adenomas removed. RESULTS: Of the patients analyzed, 85% recalled retrieval of polyps during their colonoscopy, and 85% recalled whether they needed surveillance or not. The indication for surveillance was recalled by 69% of patients (range between departments, 55%-83%; P < .01). Factors that were associated with awareness of recommendations were younger age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), treatment by a gastroenterologist (OR, 5.53; 95% CI, 3.28-9.32), and presence of 3 or more adenomas (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.29-6.85). Attendance among patients with adenomas varied among departments, from 60% to 89% (P < .01), and was not associated with awareness of patients about their recommendations per department (P = .59). CONCLUSIONS: Not enough patients (only 85%) who receive colonoscopies are aware of their results or surveillance recommendations. Although awareness of findings and recommendations did not correlate with follow-up attendance, patients should be better informed about findings and their need for surveillance