Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1127.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1127.

Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice

Philip J B Brown  1 , Victoria Warmington, Michael Laurence, A Toby Prevost
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice

Philip J B Brown et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether Clinical Terms Version 3 provides greater accuracy and consistency in coding electronic patient records than the Read Codes 5 byte set.

Design: Randomised crossover trial. Clinicians coded patient records using both schemes after being randomised in pairs to use one scheme before the other.

Setting: 10 general practices in urban, suburban, and rural environments in Norfolk.

Participants: 10 general practitioners.

Source of data: Concepts were collected from records of 100 patient encounters.

Main outcome measures: Percentage of coded choices ranked as being exact representations of the original terms; percentage of cases where coding choice of paired general practitioners was identical; length of time taken to find a code.

Results: A total of 995 unique concepts were collected. Exact matches were more common with Clinical Terms (70% (95% confidence interval 67% to 73%)) than with Read Codes (50% (47% to 53%)) (P < 0.001), and this difference was significant for each of the 10 participants individually. The pooled proportion with exact and identical matches by paired participants was greater for Clinical Terms (0.58 (0.55 to 0.61)) than Read Codes (0.36 (0.33 to 0.39)) (P < 0.001). The time taken to code with Clinical Terms (30 seconds per term) was not significantly longer than that for Read Codes.

Conclusions: Clinical Terms Version 3 performed significantly better than Read Codes 5 byte set in capturing the meaning of concepts. These findings suggest that improved coding accuracy in primary care electronic patient records can be achieved with the use of such a clinical terminology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Summary of study design for comparing coding performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set
Fig 2
Fig 2
Outline of main processes involved in coding medical records with a coding scheme
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Brown PJB, Sönksen P. Evaluation of the quality of information retrieval of clinical findings from a computerised patient database using a semantic terminological model.J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7: 401-12. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Evans DA, Cimino JJ, Hersh WR, Huff SM, Bell DS, for the CANON Group. Towards a medical-concept representation language.J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994;1: 207-17. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Severs MP. The clinical terms project. Bull R Coll Physicians Lond 1993;27(2): 9-10.
    1. Stearns MQ, Price C, Spackman KA, Wang AY. SNOMED clinical terms: overview of the development process and project status. In: Bakken S, ed. Proceedings of the 2001 AMIA Fall Symposium. Philadelphia: Hanley and Belfus, 2001: 662-6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. O'Neil M, Payne C, Read JD. Read codes version 3—a user led terminology. Methods Inf Med 1995;34: 187-92. - PubMed

Publication types