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
. 2021 Oct 28;71(712):e806-e814.
doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0301. Print 2021 Nov.

Clinical coding of long COVID in English primary care: a federated analysis of 58 million patient records in situ using OpenSAFELY

Collaborators, Affiliations
Free PMC article

Clinical coding of long COVID in English primary care: a federated analysis of 58 million patient records in situ using OpenSAFELY

Alex J Walker et al. Br J Gen Pract. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Long COVID describes new or persistent symptoms at least 4 weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this phenomenon were recently created.

Aim: To describe the use of long-COVID codes, and variation of use by general practice, demographic variables, and over time.

Design and setting: Population-based cohort study in English primary care.

Method: Working on behalf of NHS England, OpenSAFELY data were used encompassing 96% of the English population between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021. The proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID was measured overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system (EMIS or TPP), and week.

Results: Long COVID was recorded for 23 273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed among practices, with 26.7% of practices having never used the codes. Regional variation ranged between 20.3 per 100 000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval [CI] = 19.3 to 21.4) and 55.6 per 100 000 people in London (95% CI = 54.1 to 57.1). Coding was higher among females (52.1, 95% CI = 51.3 to 52.9) than males (28.1, 95% CI = 27.5 to 28.7), and higher among practices using EMIS (53.7, 95% CI = 52.9 to 54.4) than those using TPP (20.9, 95% CI = 20.3 to 21.4).

Conclusion: Current recording of long COVID in primary care is very low, and variable between practices. This may reflect patients not presenting; clinicians and patients holding different diagnostic thresholds; or challenges with the design and communication of diagnostic codes. Increased awareness of diagnostic codes is recommended to facilitate research and planning of services, and also surveys with qualitative work to better evaluate clinicians' understanding of the diagnosis.

Keywords: COVID-19; electronic health records; general practice; long COVID; primary health care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Nat Med. 2021 Apr;27(4):626-631 - PubMed
    1. Inform Prim Care. 2007;15(3):143-50 - PubMed
    1. Nature. 2021 Jun;594(7862):259-264 - PubMed
    1. Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):430-436 - PubMed
    1. Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Aug 27;70(698):e636-e643 - PubMed

Publication types