What’s new in the ICD-11 Alpha drafting platform? (CFS, PVFS, ME)

What’s new in the ICD-11 Alpha drafting platform? (CFS, PVFS, ME)

Post #157 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-22h

 

Screenshot: ICD-11 Alpha Browser Foundation view selected, logged in at April 10, 2012:

Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23G93.3

Apr 09 – 11:02 UTC

 

ICD-11 Beta drafting platform to launch in May?

As reported in previous posts, according to the timeline, the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is supposed to be launching this May.

ICD-11 Revision Steering Group has yet to announce whether the Beta platform remains on target for a May release and if so, on what date it will be launched – so I cannot give you a date yet.

Like the Alpha Drafting Browser, the Beta drafting platform will be a work in progress – not a final Beta draft. The final Beta isn’t scheduled until 2014, after the ICD-11 field trials have been undertaken.

When it does launch, the Beta platform is intended to be accessible to professionals and the public for viewing.

Registered or logged in users will have greater access to content and will be able to interact with the platform to read comments, comment on proposals and make suggestions, as part of the ongoing drafting process.  

In the meantime, the publicly viewable version of the Alpha drafting platform (known as the ICD-11 Alpha Browser) can still be accessed here:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en

The various ICD-11 Revision Topic Advisory Groups are carrying out their draft preparation work on a separate, more complex multi-author drafting platform that is accessible only to WHO and ICD Revision personnel.

 

Alpha drafting platform

As before, the publicly viewable version of the Alpha Browser should be viewed with the following caveats in mind:

the Alpha draft is a work in progress; it is incomplete; it may contain errors and omissions; it is in a state of flux and updated daily; textual content, codes and “Sorting labels” are subject to change as chapters are reorganized and content populated; the content has not been approved by Topic Advisory Groups, Revision Steering Group or WHO.

It is possible to register, or sign into the platform using existing accounts with several third party account providers such as Google, Yahoo and myOpenID, for increased access and functionality. Once signed in, Comments and Questions can be read and PDFs of the drafts of the top level linearizations can be downloaded from the Linearization tab.

See the Alpha Browser User Guide for information on how the Alpha Browser functions:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/Help/en

 

The ICD-11 “Content Model”

ICD-11 will be available in both print and online versions and unlike most chapters of ICD-10, will include descriptive content for ICD terms.

For the online version of ICD-11, all ICD entities will include a definition and a number of additional key descriptive fields – between 7 and 13 pre-defined parameters, populated according to a common “Content Model” (Content Model Reference Guide January 2011).

For example, ICD entity Title, Definition, Synonyms, Narrower Terms, Exclusions, Body Site, Body System, Signs and Symptoms, Causal Mechanisms, and possibly Diagnostic Criteria for some entities.*

*According to the iCAT User Google Group message board, these fields may have been revised since the January 2011 Content Model Reference Guide was published; Content Model parameters in the Beta draft may therefore differ from those currently displaying in the public Alpha drafting platform.

The print version will use a concise version of Definition due to space constraints.

In the Alpha Browser, not all these Content Model parameters display in the Foundation and Linearization views and not all of the parameters that have been listed for individual entities have had their draft text added yet, as some chapters are more advanced for the population of proposed content than others.

So the Alpha draft is still very patchy and many entities have no Definition and little or no other proposed content filled in.

With no “Category Discussion Notes” or “Change history” pop-up windows visible in the public version of the Alpha, the viewer cannot determine the rationales behind the reorganization of terms and hierarchies within the various chapters.

 

Chapter location and hierarchy for CFS, PVFS and (Benign) ME in ICD-11

I have been reporting since June 2010 that the proposals for ICD-11 Alpha Draft, as far as one could determine, appeared to be:

1] That a change of hierarchy had been recorded in a “Category Discussion Note”, dated May 1, 2010, between ICD-10 Title term “Postviral fatigue syndrome” and “Chronic fatigue syndrome”. (“Category Discussion Notes” and “Change History” pop-ups did display in the earlier iCAT version of the Alpha drafting platform.)

You can view a screenshot from June 2010 of that “Change history” record here:

http://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/change-history-gj92-cfs.png

The Definition field on the “Chronic fatigue syndrome” description panel in the current Alpha Browser is currently blank but in June 2010, the Definition had stood as in this contemporaneous screenshot:

http://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/2icatgj92cfsdef.png

2] That “Chronic fatigue syndrome” had been designated as an ICD-11 Title term within ICD-11 Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system, with the capacity for a Definition and up to 10 additional descriptive parameters.

3] That “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” had been specified as an Inclusion term to ICD-11 Title term “Chronic fatigue syndrome” but that the relationships between the three terms, PVFS, (B) ME and CFS had yet to be specified, as in this screenshot from June 2010:

http://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/2icatgj92cfsterms.png

 

What is currently showing in the Chapter 6 Foundation Component?

It isn’t possible to bring up a discrete ICD Title listing for either “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” or “Postviral fatigue syndrome” in either the Foundation Component or the Linearization.

In the Foundation view only, for Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system, “Chronic fatigue syndrome” is listed as a Title term with the ICD-10 legacy ID “ID:http://who.int/icd#G93.3″;

the Definition field is currently blank;

a list of terms has recently been added under “Synonyms”;

one term has recently been added under “Narrower Terms”.

(Note: there is a small asterisk at the end of term “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” which is listed at the top of the “Synonyms” list. The asterisk “Hover text” reads “This term is an inclusion term in the linearizations.”)

If you want to view the listing directly on the Browser site (note the “Comment” and “Questions” icons which open up pop-up windows next to terms for reading/commenting won’t display unless you have already registered and logged in) go here:

ICD-11 Alpha Browser Foundation view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23G93.3

ID:http://who.int/icd#G93.3

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Parent(s)

Selected cause is Remainder of diseases of the nervous system in Condensed and selected Infant and child mortality lists
Selected Cause is All other diseases in the Selected General mortality list
Selected cause is Diseases of the nervous system

Definition

This entity does not have a definition at the moment.

Synonyms

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis *  [Ed: Hover text over asterisk reads: "This term is an inclusion term in the linearizations."]
akureyri
akureyri disease
cfs – chronic fatigue syndrome
chronic fatigue syndrome nos   [Ed: from current proposals for ICD-10-CM, Chapter 18, R53.82]
chronic fatigue, unspecified   [Ed: from current proposals for ICD-10-CM, Chapter 18, R53.82]
epidemic neuromyasthenia
iceland disease
icelandic disease
me – myalgic encephalomyelitis
myalgic encephalomyelitis
myalgic encephalomyelitis syndrome
postviral fatigue syndrome
pvfs – postviral fatigue syndrome

Narrower Terms

neuromyasthenia

Body Site

Entire brain (body structure)
Brain structure (body structure)

Causal Mechanisms

Virus (organism)

 

What’s new in Chapter 5: Mental and behavioural disorders?

As reported in Dx Revision Watch post: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Vx,  the category “Somatoform Disorders” in Chapter 5, Mental and behavioural disorders is currently renamed to “BODILY DISTRESS DISORDERS”, under which currently sit three new child categories:

5M0 Mild bodily distress disorder
5M1 Moderate bodily distress disorder
5M2 Severe bodily distress disorder.

Chapter 5 Linearization view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23F45

Chapter 5 Foundation view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23F45

(Click on the little grey arrows to display the child categories):

Child categories to parent ”BODILY DISTRESS DISORDERS”:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%231905_dd0250d2_e8cd_4c48_a93f_7997cc1c8b07

BODILY DISTRESS DISORDERS

5M0 Mild bodily distress disorder
5M1 Moderate bodily distress disorder
5M2 Severe bodily distress disorder
5M3 Somatization disorder
5M4 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder
5M5 Somatoform autonomic dysfunction
5M6 Persistent somatoform pain disorder
      > 5M6.0 Persistent somatoform pain disorder
      > 5M6.1 Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psycological [sic] factors
5M7 Other somatoform disorders
5M8 Somatoform disorder, unspecified

None of these three new (proposed) categories have had any Definitions or other textual content added to the description panels on the right hand side of the Alpha Browser page since I first reported this change in February.

It is still not possible to determine what disorders ICD-11 intends might be captured by these three new (proposed) terms, should ICD-11 Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts consider these terms to be valid constructs and approve their progression through to the Beta draft.

Because no “Change Notes” or “Change history” pop-up windows display in this version of the Alpha Drafting browser, it is not possible to determine:

whether ICD-11 is proposing to introduce three new terms – 5M0 Mild bodily distress disorder; 5M1 Moderate bodily distress disorder; 5M2 Severe bodily distress disorder, in addition to retaining existing ICD-10 terms, 5M3 thru 5M8;

how ICD Revision intends to define these (proposed) new terms at 5M0, 5M1, 5M2;

how these three (proposed) new terms would relate to the existing ICD-10 “Somatoform Disorders” categories which remain listed as child categories to “BODILY DISTRESS DISORDERS” (apart from “Hypochondriacal disorder” [ICD-10: F45.2], which is now listed as “5H0.5 Illness Anxiety Disorder” in the ICD-11 Alpha Draft).

(See Page 1 and 2 of my report: “Bodily Distress Disorders” to replace “Somatoform Disorders” for ICD-11?: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Vx  )

 

References:

ICD-11 Revision: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/

ICD-11 Alpha Browser User Guide: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/caveat/en/index.html
Alpha Browser Foundation view: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#
Alpha Browser Linearization view: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#
“Bodily Distress Disorders” to replace “Somatoform Disorders” for ICD-11?: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Vx

APA “Monitor” articles: ICD-11 and DSM-5; Frances, Rajiv Tandon on DSM-5; iCAT Analytics

1] ICD-11 (with contributions from WHO’s Dr Geoffery Reed) and DSM-5 articles in February edition of American Psychological Association’s “Monitor”

2] Academic article on DSM-5 by Rajiv Tandon, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida

3] Allen Frances (who chaired the DSM-IV Task Force), Suzy Chapman and Dr Dayle Jones on DSM-5

4] Paper: Pragmatic Analysis of Crowd-Based Knowledge Production Systems with iCAT Analytics: Visualizing Changes to the ICD-11 Ontology

 

Post #137 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1QW

1] Two articles in the February edition of the American Psychological Association’s “Monitor”:

American Psychological Association

Monitor

Feature, February 2012, Vol 43, No. 2

Improving disorder classification, worldwide

Rebecca A. Clay  |  February 2012

With the help of psychologists, the next version of the International Classification of Diseases will have a more behavioral perspective.

Print version: page 40

What’s the world’s most widely used classification system for mental disorders? If you guessed the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), you would be wrong.

According to a study of nearly 5,000 psychiatrists in 44 countries sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Psychiatric Association, more than 70 percent of the world’s psychiatrists use WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) most in day-to-day practice while just 23 percent turn to the DSM. The same pattern is found among psychologists globally, according to preliminary results from a similar survey of international psychologists conducted by WHO and the International Union of Psychological Science.

“The ICD is the global standard for health information,” says psychologist Geoffrey M. Reed, PhD, senior project officer in WHO’s Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. “It’s developed as a tool for the public good; it’s not the property of a particular profession or particular professional organization.”

Now WHO is revising the ICD, with the ICD-11 due to be approved in 2015. With unprecedented input from psychologists, the revised version’s section on mental and behavioral disorders is expected to be more psychologist-friendly than ever—something that’s especially welcome given concerns being raised about the DSM’s own ongoing revision process. (See “Protesting proposed changes to the DSM”.) And coming changes in the United States will mean that psychologists will soon need to get as familiar with the ICD as their colleagues around the world…

…”Since the rest of the world will be adopting the ICD-11 when it is released in 2015, the CDC will likely make annual updates to gradually bring the ICD-10-CM into line with the ICD-11 to avoid another abrupt shift. But the differences between the DSM and the ICD may grow even greater over time, says Reed, depending on the outcomes of the ICD and DSM revision processes.”

For more information about the ICD revision, visit the World Health Organization.

Rebecca A. Clay is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Read full article here

American Psychological Association

Monitor

February 2012, Vol 43, No. 2

Print version: page 42

Protesting proposed changes to the DSM

When President David N. Elkins, PhD, and two colleagues within APA’s Div. 32 (Society for Humanistic Psychology) heard about the proposed revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), they were alarmed. But what could three people do?

Plenty, as it turns out.

Although their original aim was simply to educate the division’s members, Elkins, Secretary Brent Dean Robbins, PhD, and student representative Sara R. Kamens soon decided to share their concerns in an open letter to the American Psychiatric Association. Thinking it would pack more punch with a few more signatures, they posted it online last October.

The response astounded them. “Within two days, we had more than 1,500 signatures,” says Elkins. So far, more than 10,000 individuals and 40 mental health organizations have signed on, and media outlets as diverse as Nature, USA Today and Forbes have covered the controversy. APA, which has no official position on the controversy, urges its members to get involved in the debate (see APA’s statement in the January Monitor, page 10).

The open letter outlines three major concerns with the proposed draft of the DSM-5, set for publication in 2013…

Read full article here

2] Article by Rajiv Tandon, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida:

Current Psychiatry

Vol. 11, No. 02 / February 2012

Getting ready for DSM-5: Part 1

The process, challenges, and status of constructing the next diagnostic manual

Rajiv Tandon, MD  |  February 2012
Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Discuss this article at www.facebook.com/CurrentPsychiatry

Work on the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—scheduled to be published in May 2013—has been ongoing for more than a decade. Momentous advances in genetics and brain imaging since publication of DSM-IV in 1994 have generated optimism that an improved understanding of the neurobiologic underpinnings of psychiatric disorders might lead to a paradigm shift from the current descriptive classification system to a more scientific etiopathophysiological system similar to that used by other medical specialities.1

Some fear that any changes to our current classification system may be premature and could make an already complex system even more unwieldy.2 Scores of articles about the content and process of DSM-5 and several critiques and commentaries on the topic have been published. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has made the DSM-5 process transparent by posting frequent updates to the DSM-5 Development Web site (www.dsm5.org), seeking feedback from the psychiatric community and the public, and presenting progress reports by members of the DSM-5 Task Force at scientific meetings.

There have been few discussions on the implications of DSM-5 from the practicing clinician’s vantage point, which I seek to present in this series of articles, the remainder of which will be published here, at CurrentPsychiatry.com…

Read on here

 

3] Allen Frances, MD, in Psychology Today and Psychiatric Times

Registration required for access to article on Psychiatric Times

DSM5 in Distress

PTSD, DSM 5, and Forensic Misuse
DSM 5 would lead to overdiagnosis in legal cases.

Allen Frances, MD | February 9, 2012

————————————————————

Documentation That DSM-5 Publication Must Be Delayed
because DSM 5 is so far behind schedule

Allen Frances, MD | February 7, 2012

Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the Task Force that had oversight of the development of DSM-IV, is a former chief of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center and currently professor emeritus at Duke

Last week, I wrote that DSM-5 is so far behind schedule it can’t possibly produce a usable document in time for its planned publication date in May 2013.¹ My blog stimulated 2 interesting responses that illustrate the stark contrast between DSM-5 fantasy and DSM-5 reality. Together they document why publication must be delayed if DSM-5 is to be set right. The first email came from Suzy Chapman of Dx Revision Watch http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com

Re DSM-5 delays, here is a telling statement made by Dr Darrel Regier, its Vice Chair, on March 9, 2010: “We have just released draft criteria on a website on February 10th at dsm5.org. And we’ll be having a field trial starting in July of this year. We’ll then have another revision based on field trial results going into a second revision or second field trial in July of 2011. As a result, we will not have our final recommendations for the DSM-V probably until early 2011.”  She continues,

Please note the dates. Dr Regier’s promised timetable has been missed by more than a year—we still don’t have final recommendations.

Dayle Jones, PhD, is head of the Task Force of the American Counseling Association that monitors DSM-5. She sent in a timeline comparing DSM-5 promised deadlines with actual delivery dates:

The DSM-5 academic/large clinic field trials were designed to have two phases. Phase 1 was first scheduled to begin in June 2009, but had to be postponed for a year because the criteria sets were not ready. The timetable for field trial completion was unrealistic from the start and not surprisingly the end dates have been repeatedly postponed from early 2010 to early 2011, and we’re now already into 2012 with no end in sight. Phase 2, originally scheduled for September 2011 to February 2012, was to re-test those diagnoses that did poorly in Phase 1 and had to be revised. The phase 2 trials were quietly canceled. We still don’t have results from the phase 1 field trials, but the APA leadership has warned us that we must accept reliabilities that are barely better than chance. Without the second stage, uncorrected problem diagnoses will be included in DSM-5.

The separate clinician field trial has been an even worse disaster. Clinicians were originally scheduled to be trained by August 2010, enrolling patients no later than late November 2010, and ending by February, 2011. Training was finally completed 18 months late in December 2011, which means the earliest these trials could possibly end is June 2012—well after most DSM-5 final decisions will have been made. Furthermore, of the over 5000 clinicians who registered to participate, only 70 (1.4%) have begun enrolling patients for the field trial. My guess is that like academic/large clinic Phase 2 field trial, poor planning and disorganization will force cancellation.

Dr Jones concludes,

In my opinion, there is no process and not enough time left to ensure that DSM-5 will attain high enough quality to be used by counselors. Fortunately, we can always bypass it by using ICD-10-CM.

Sobering stuff. Its constant procrastination has at last caught up with DSM-5. Having fallen so far behind schedule, DSM-5 abruptly dropped the second stage of field-testing—without public comment or justification or discussion of what would be the effects on quality and reliability. In fact, the second stage of the field trials was perhaps the most crucial step in the entire DSM-5 process—a last chance for sorely needed quality control to bring a lagging DSM-5 up to acceptable standards. The DSM-5 proposals that were weak performers in the first stage were supposed to be rewritten and retested in the second to ensure that they deserved to be included in the manual.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is now stuck with the most unpalatable of choices—protecting the quality of DSM-5 versus protecting the publishing profits to be gained by premature publication. Given all the delays, it can’t possibly do both—a quality DSM-5 cannot be delivered in May 2013.

All along, it was predictable (and predicted), that DSM-5 disorganization would lead to a mad, careless dash at the end. The DSM’s have become far too important to be done in this slapdash way—the high cost to users and the public of this rush to print is unacceptable. Unless publication is delayed, APA will be offering us official DSM-5 criteria that are poorly written, inadequately tested, and of low reliability. The proper alternative is clear: APA should delay publication of DSM-5 until it can get the job done right. Public trust should always trump publishing profits.

Let’s close with a worrying and all too illustrative quote from Dr Regier, just posted by Scientific American.² When asked if revisions to criteria in DSM-5 could be completed by the end of this year, he said “there is plenty of time.” I beg to differ—there is not nearly enough time if the changes are to be done based on a much needed independent scientific review and are to be tested adequately in Phase 2 of the field trial. Without these necessary steps DSM-5 will be flying blind toward the land of unintended consequences.

References
1. Frances A. APA should delay publication of DSM-5. January 31, 2012. Psychiatr Times. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/frances/content/article/10168/2024394

2. Jabr F. Redefining autism: will new DSM-5 Criteria for ASD exclude some people? January 30, 2012. Sci Am. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-new-criteria  Accessed February 7, 2012.

 

4] Paper: Pragmatic Analysis of Crowd-Based Knowledge Production Systems with iCAT Analytics: Visualizing Changes to the ICD-11 Ontology

     Pragmatic Analysis – iCAT Analytics 2012

Pragmatic Analysis of Crowd-Based Knowledge Production Systems with iCAT Analytics: Visualizing Changes to the ICD-11 Ontology

http://kmi.tugraz.at/staff/markus/documents/2012_AAAI_iCATAnalytics.pdf

Jan P¨oschko and Markus Strohmaier, Knowledge Management Institute, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 21a/II, 8010 Graz, Austria

Tania Tudorache and Natalya F. Noy and Mark A. Musen, Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, CA 94305-5479, USA

Abstract

While in the past taxonomic and ontological knowledge was traditionally produced by small groups of co-located experts, today the production of such knowledge has a radically different shape and form. For example, potentially thousands of health professionals, scientists, and ontology experts will collaboratively construct, evaluate and  maintain the most recent version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), a large ontology of diseases and causes of deaths managed by the World Health Organization. In this work, we present a novel web-based tool-iCAT Analytics-that allows to investigate systematically crowd-based processes in knowledge-production systems. To enable such investigation, the tool supports interactive exploration of pragmatic aspects of ontology engineering such as how a given ontology evolved and the nature of changes, discussions and interactions that took place during its production process. While iCAT Analytics was motivated by ICD-11, it could potentially be applied to any crowd-based ontology-engineering project. We give an introduction to the features of iCAT Analytics and present some insights specifically for ICD-11.

New: Online ICD-10 Version for 2010

New: Online ICD-10 Version for 2010

Post #106 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1jm

The information in this report refers only to the existing international WHO ICD-10 and not to the forthcoming ICD-11 or to any country specific, clinical modification of ICD-10.

New: Online ICD-10 Version for 2010

I reported some months ago that according to documentation from WHO-FIC meeting materials, it was understood that a version of ICD-10 for 2010 was planned to be published online by WHO, Geneva, earlier this year.

This would replace the ICD-10 online version for 2007 and incorporate all the annual updates to ICD-10 from 2007 to 2010.

This is now up online.

A searchable version of ICD-10 for 2010 is available at this URL:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision

It is presented on a platform similar to the platform being used for the ICD-11 Alpha Draft, that is, a list of ICD-10 Chapters on the left side of the screen, arranged with hierarchical parent > child categories, with the category codings set out on the right side of the screen.

This is the URL for ICD Title term G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/G93.3

If “Chronic fatigue syndrome” is entered into the Search box, a drop down reads:

“Syndrome – fatigue – chronic – G93.3″

(Which is the way it is set out in Volume 3 The Alphabetical Index.)

Mouse hover over the orange square on the left of the dark blue drop down and the “Alt text” reads:

“Found in Index”

There is a User Guide for ICD-10 Version: 2010 but the platform is not difficult to navigate, just select a chapter and click on the little grey arrows to display parent class and Title term categories and their child categories – you can’t break anything:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/Help

Those of us with websites that have URLs pointing to specific ICD-10 version for 2007 categories will need to adjust URLs for the new platform, as code specific URLs are pointing only to the ICD-10 Version: 2010 opening page, for example:

what displayed in ICD-10 version for 2007 at this path:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gg90.htm+g933

would need updating to:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/G93.3

and the Chapter V entry for the F40-48 categories:

http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf40.htm+f480

would need updating to:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F40-F48

or

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F45.0

to point to F45 Somatoform Disorders

or

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F48.0

to point to F48.0 Neurasthenia.

Compiled by Suzy Chapman

Update on ICD-11 development: July 3, 2011

Update on ICD-11 development: July 3, 2011

Post #96 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1eb

The information in this mailing relates only to ICD-11, the forthcoming revision of ICD-10 that is scheduled for pilot implementation in 2015. It does not apply to the forthcoming US specific Clinical Modification of ICD-10, known as “ICD-10-CM”, scheduled for implementation in October 2013, or to Clinical Modifications of ICD-10 already in use.

Caveat (updated 18 September 2011): The screenshots below were a “snapshot” of the ICD-11 Alpha Browser as it had stood on May 17 and 19, 2011. The ICD-11 Alpha Browser is a work in progress and is updated by ICD Revision personnel on a daily basis. Information visible in the Alpha Browser is incomplete, will have changed since May 17, may be in a state of flux and may contain errors and omissions; the codes and temporary “Sorting labels” assigned to ICD parent classes and categories are subject to change as work on the draft progresses and as chapters are reorganized. Note that the screenshots below no longer reflect what can be seen in the draft, as it currently stands in September 2011.

Not all ICD-11 category terms and the data associated with them (which is in the process of being populated according to 13 common ICD-11 Content Model fields, that include Definitions, Inclusions, Exclusions, Causal Mechanisms and other parameters that will be used to describe ICD-11 entities) display in this version of the Alpha Browser platform. A separate, more layered electronic drafting platform is being used by the various ICD Revision Topic Advisory Group (TAG) managers and their workgroup members, accessible only to ICD Revision TAG personnel via a password protected log in. The multi author electronic platform which the Revision TAGs are working on displays Content Model fields that are not currently viewable by the public, though for some ICD categories, Definitions are now displaying in the public version, as the development of some chapters of the ICD-11 Alpha Browser is more advanced than others.

In the next month or two, ICD-11 Revision is planning to release a new drafting platform which will be accessible by the public and for which professionals and the public will be able to register online to submit comment. This new platform was originally scheduled for mid May, then July, but ICD Revision is slipping its targets. When the new platform is released, there will be an official channel of communication but the commenting process will not be like that of the DSM stakeholder review. For an idea of what is being planned for stakeholder involvement during the alpha and beta development stages, see the presentation slides in these two Dx Revision Watch posts from April 19, 2011:

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting 11 – 14 April 2011: The Way Forward?

Shortlink Post #70: http://wp.me/pKrrB-ZN

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and PowerPoint slide presentations

Shortlink Post #71: http://wp.me/pKrrB-10i

In the meantime, the version of the Alpha Draft currently visible to the public comes with WHO caveats and should not be relied upon and it does not reflect the screenshots below, as they had stood in May, this year. As soon as the new public platform is released, I will update, at the moment there is insufficient information to reliably determine proposals and I am seeing misreporting and outdated information being discussed on some forums.

For example, in June to November 2010, the iCAT Alpha Draft recorded a change in hierarchy for PVFS because its parent class “G93 Other disorders of brain” is removed, with ICD Title “Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome” listed as a child category of parent class, ”GN Other disorders of the nervous system” (see this post for screenshots as they stood at that date).

But by May 2011, the “Sorting labels” had been revised and the public version of the alpha draft displayed “06L Other disorders of the nervous system” > “06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome”. However, the 06L00 code has subsequently been reassigned to parent class “Disorders of autonomic nervous system”, and parent class, “[G93] Other disorders of brain” (an ICD-10 legacy parent class which had previously been proposed to be removed or retired) has since reappeared as a parent class at “06L02″.

“Chronic fatigue syndrome” is currently listed not at, or under “06L00″, or under parent class “06L02″ [formerly parent class G93, under which had sat PVFS and (B)ME and a number of other child classes to G93], but is currently assigned the Sorting label “23A113.00″ under:

23 Special tabulation lists for mortality and morbidity
  > 23A Tabulation list for mortality
     >> 23A113 Selected cause is Remainder of the nervous system in Condensed and selected Infant and  child mortality lists
         >>> 23A113.00 Chronic fatigue syndrome

(for which no rationale or “Discussion Note” is evident in the public version), together with a long list of other Chapter 6 categories listed under Special tabulation lists for mortality and morbidity.

I would advise against attempting to determine ICD-11 proposals based on the status of the information as it currently displays, the ambiguities, the lack of visible “Discussion Notes” which explain changes (which had been visible in the iCAT platform, last year) and given that input and organization of data on the multi editor platform is subject to daily revision by numerous ICD Revision personnel, is therefore in a state of flux and may contain technical errors and omissions due to software glitches and human error in data entry and operation of a complex electronic platform.

I wrote to WHO’s Sarah Cottler in September 2011 requesting clarifications. No response was received.

Click here for ICD Caveats

 

Screenshot from ICD11 Alpha  retrieved May 17 – 11.02 UTC    Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system: Foundation Tab selected

ICD11 Alpha Chapter 6

    »  http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_G93_3_3

Screenshot from ICD11 Alpha  retrieved May 19 – 11.02 UTC    Chapter 6: Linearizations Tab > Morbidity selected

    »  http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_G93_3_3

 

Slipping Timeline

In May, I reported that the revision of ICD-10 and development of ICD-11 is running about a year behind targets for the population of content and software development and that the ICD-11 Timeline for Alpha and Beta drafting has been adjusted [1]. In order to meet its revised schedule, the technical work on ICD-11 will need to be completed by 2013, the year the APA’s DSM-5 is slated for publication. 

Drafting platforms

In November 2010, the iCAT platform through which ICD-11 was being drafted was taken out of the public domain. In May, this year, an ICD-11 Alpha browser was released for public viewing [2], with a number of caveats [3].

This most recently published Alpha platform does not include many of the “Content Model” parameters, for example, no draft “Definitions” are included and neither are the  ”Discussion Notes” and “Change Histories” that had been viewable in the iCAT, as it stood last June to November. You can see screenshots of the June to November 2010 version of the iCAT in this post [4].

For screenshots from the most recent Alpha Browser for:

Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system > 06L Other disorders of the nervous system > 06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome

see this post [5] or pull up the Alpha Browser pages, here [6].

As you’ll see, ICD-10 Chapter VI (6) is undergoing reorganization and the parent class “G93 Other disorders of brain” under which “Postviral fatigue syndrome”, “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” and many other ICD-10 categories had sat is proposed to be removed. A change of hierarchy between “Postviral fatigue syndrome” and “Chronic fatigue sydrome” is recorded in a “Change History” note.

Reorganization of Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system

Chapter 6 categories for ICD-11 are currently assigned the codes 06A thru 06L02. It is not known what codes will eventually be assigned to the categories within ICD-11 Chapter 6. As you’ll see from the screenshots, “06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome” is proposed to be classified under “06L Other disorders of the nervous system”, with “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” specified as an Inclusion term to “06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome”.

Relationships between Inclusion terms are not specified within ICD-10, but they will be specified within ICD-11.

Go here for ICD-11 Chapter 5 “Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders” > Somatoform Disorders and Neurasthenia:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_F45

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_F48_3_0

Go here for ICD-11 Chapter 18 “Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified” > Malaise and fatigue:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_R53

 

The Revision Steering Group (RSG) and the various ICD Revision Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs) and their external reviewers for content and proposals are using a more layered version of the platform on which they are undertaking the ongoing drafting process; their platform is currently accessible only to WHO, ICD Revision and IT technicians.

The public version of the ICD-11 Alpha Browser, which is being updated daily, is currently open for public viewing only – not for commenting on. But in July, ICD Revision is planning to open up the Alpha Browser for one year for public commenting and consultations.

Extracts from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/index.html

ICD-11 Timeline

Compiled from the most recent Timelines [1] [7]:

• May 2011: Alpha Browser opened up for public viewing [Reached]

• July 2011: Alpha Browser opened up for public commenting

+1 year for Commentaries and consultations

• May 2012: Beta version opened up to public and Field Trials Version

+2 years for Field trials

• 2014: Final version for public viewing

• May 2015: Presentation of the final version for World Health Assembly (WHA) Approval

Stakeholder participation

The WHO will be engaging with stakeholders who express an interest in participating in the ICD revision process.

Individuals may register to:

Make comments

Make proposals to change ICD categories

Participate in field trials

Assist in translating

The drafting browsers will be open all year round, subject to continuous daily updates and open to all interested stakeholders – Health Care Providers, Information Managers etc. Proposals and feedback will be subject to structured peer review by the Topic Advisory Groups.

For more information on how stakeholder participation is being projected see presentation slides in these reports on my site [8] [9].

Registering for participation

It’s currently unclear which classes of stakeholder might be called upon to participate, and to what extent, during the Alpha drafting stage.

The Stakeholder Registration Form [10] currently appears geared for participation by medical and allied health professionals and administrators. Irrespective of whether the “Yes” or “No” field for the question “Are you a health care professional?” is selected, one is presented with the same options:

Register to become involved

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/index.html

WHO wants to know if you are interested in being involved in the ICD Revision. We will contact you as certain features are opened to the public.

What is your clinical profession?

Medicine

Psychology

Nursing

Counselling

Social Work

Health Information Manager

Coder

Which of the following describes your highest educational attainment? Pre-University; University Degree; Non-doctoral post graduate degree (e.g. Master’s;) Doctoral degree (PhD, post bachelor’s MD, or similar)

Are you interested in participating in:

Making proposals

Peer-reviewing

Field trials

I will check the form again, once the Alpha draft has been opened up for public comment, currently scheduled for July. It is anticipated that an Alpha browser using different software from that currently in use may be released in July. I will update when the browser is opened up for public comment.

The ICD-11 “Content Model”

The WHO’s, Dr Bedhiran Üstün, describes ICD-10 as a “laundry list”. One of the most significant differences between ICD-10 and the forthcoming ICD-11 will be the “Content Model”.

Content Model

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/contentmodel/en/index.html

The content model is a structured framework that captures the knowledge that underpins the definition of an ICD entity.

• Represents ICD entities in a standard way

• Allows computerization

• Each ICD entity can be seen from different dimensions or “parameters”. E.g. there are currently 13 defined main parameters in the content model to describe a category in ICD (see below).

• A parameter is expressed using standard terminologies known as “value sets”

Content Model Parameters

ICD Entity Title

Classification Properties

Textual Definitions

Terms

Body System/Structure Description

Temporal Properties

Severity of Subtypes Properties

Manifestation Properties

Causal Properties

Functioning Properties

Specific Condition Properties

Treatment Properties

Diagnostic Criteria

For more information on the application of the “Content Model” see document [11].

Definitions

There are no definitions inlcuded in any volume of ICD-10 for  ”Postviral fatigue syndrome”, “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” or “Chronic fatigue syndrome”. WHO has never set out what it understands by these terms nor has it specified what ICD-10 understands the relationships between these three terms to be (see page: http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/icd-11-me-cfs/) but there will be definitions in ICD-11 and the relationships between Inclusion terms will be specified.

Definitions

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/def/en/index.html

• All ICD entities will have definitions: key descriptions of the meaning of the category in human readable terms – to guide users

• Limited definition in Print Version – 100 words

• Detailed definitions ONLINE

• Definitions will be compatible with:

- the Content Model

- Diagnostic Criteria

- across the whole classification and the versions

Versions of ICD-11 are planned for multiple settings:

Primary Care

Clinical Services

Research

Specialty Adaptations of ICD-11 are being planned for:

Children and Youth

Oncology

Mental Health

Neurology

Musculoskeletal

Dermatology

Dentistry

————————————–

Sources, references and further reading:

ICD-11 Revision on main WHO website

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/

1] ICD-11 Revised Timeline

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/timeline/en/index.html

2] ICD-11 Alpha Browser Platform

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en

3] ICD-11 Alpha Browser Caveats

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/caveat/en/index.html

4] Article: iCAT collaborative authoring platform, June to November 2010, screenshots and notes

http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/pvfs-me-cfs-and-the-icd-11-alpha-draft-and-icat-collaborative-authoring-platform/

5] Article: ICD-11 Alpha Browser Platform, screenshots and notes for Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system > 06L Other disorders of the nervous system > 06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome

http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/icd-11-alpha-drafting-platform-launched-17-may-public-version/

6] ICD-11 Alpha Browser Platform: ICD-11 entity “06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome”

Foundation:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_G93_3_3

Linearizations Morbidity:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_G93_3_3

7] ICD-11 Timeline: PowerPoint presentation (in PDF format)

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/class/intercop/expertgroup/2011/AC234-P32.PDF

8] Article: ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and PowerPoint slide presentations

http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/icd-revision-process-alpha-evaluation-meeting-presentations/

9] Article: ICD-11 Revision Steering Group struggling to meet targets for release of Beta Draft platform in May

http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/icd-11-struggling-to-meet-targets-for-release-of-beta-draft-in-may/

10] Register for participation in ICD-11 Alpha drafting process

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/

Stakeholder Registration form

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDVabnF1RFpTQkVnVEN2TXhVRm55MGc6MQ

[11] ICD-11 Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

http://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/home/documents

http://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/content20model20reference20guide20january2020111.doc

ICD Revision: WHO announces revised Timeline for ICD-11

ICD Revision: WHO announces revised Timeline for ICD-11

Post #79 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-16e

The information in this report relates only to ICD-11, the forthcoming revision of ICD-10 that is scheduled for completion and pilot implementation in 2014/15. It does not apply to the forthcoming US specific Clinical Modification of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

The following has been published on the WHO’s website in the last couple of days. Note that the original timeline had scheduled presentation to the WHA (World Health Assembly) in May 2014, for pilot implementation of ICD-11 in 2014. This most recent timeline for ICD-11 Revision suggests that implementation is being postponed until 2015+.

A WHO news release (if issued) and details on how to access the drafting platform, will be posted as more information becomes available.

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/timeline/en/

ICD Revision Timelines

May 2011

Open ICD-11 Alpha Browser to the public for viewing

July 2011

Open ICD-11 Alpha Browser to the public for commenting

May 2012

Open ICD-11 Beta to the public

ICD-11 Beta Information
WHO will engage with individuals from an outside community to participate in the ICD revision process.

Individuals will be allowed to:

• Make comments
• Make proposals to change ICD categories
• Participate in field trials
• Assist in translating

May 2015
Present the ICD-11 to the World Health Assembly 

Related information:

Alpha and Beta drafting process:

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and PowerPoint slide presentations, April 19, 2011: http://wp.me/pKrrB-10i

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting 11 – 14 April 2011: The Way Forward? April 19: 2011: http://wp.me/pKrrB-ZN

 

Key documents and references:

1] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

2] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting presentations

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and PowerPoint slide presentations

Post #71 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-10i

The information in this mailing relates only to ICD-11, the forthcoming revision of ICD-10 that is scheduled for completion and pilot implementation in 2014/15. It does not apply to the forthcoming US specific Clinical Modification of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting

An ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting was held, last week, in Geneva. See this post on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site for more information and commentary: http://wp.me/pKrrB-ZN

The Agenda for the meeting can be read here: ICD11 April 2011 Meeting Agenda Word .docx

Following this meeting, it is anticipated that ICD Revision Steering Group may make a public announcement within the next few weeks of how it intends to proceed in light of the fact that the timeline for transition from the Alpha to Beta drafting phases has slipped.

The meeting Agenda and PowerPoint slides suggest that ICD Revision is working towards making a version of the drafting platform publicly available around 16 May, this year, but that this may be a compromise on previous plans and possibly a “hybrid” between the Alpha and Beta drafting phases.

Earlier timelines had approval by World Health Assembly (WHA) slated for May 2014, with pilot implementation of ICD-11 in March 2014. One presentation slide now suggests approval by WHA in 2015.

It’s unconfirmed, but if this is the case, WHO may have already decided to shift WHA endorsement and dissemination of ICD-11 by 12 months, to 2015. This would mean that DSM-5 would have been put to bed and published two years prior to ICD-11 implementation.

From the meeting Agenda:

“Future Phases:

a. iCAT continued alpha development and evaluation ( 2010-11)

b. iCAT beta phase ( 2012-2015)

c. iCAT continuous maintenance phase ( 2015+)”

In November, last year, the iCAT collaborative authoring platform through which ICD-11 is being drafted was taken out of the public domain. A revised version of the software on which the platform runs is currently sitting on a Standford server, behind a password, accessible only to ICD Revision. This, or a similar version, may be made publicly accessible (or accessible to those who register for access) from mid May.

There has been discussion is earlier ICD Revision documents of a hierarchy of stakeholder input – but there is nothing much on this in the meeting presentations, for which ICD Revision has published only slides - not transcripts.

Coming up on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch:

ICD-11 proposals for PVFS, ME and Chronic fatigue syndrome

Until some form of Alpha/Beta transition drafting platform is back in the public domain, it won’t be evident how much further forward the population of content for Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system has progressed since last November. As more information becomes available, I will update, and I will be posting a summary of how things stood in the iCAT last November, in Post #72.

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting presentations

There are five presentations published for this meeting: the following three may be of interest to those following the development of ICD-11:

(The 2007 MS PowerPoint viewer is required to view PowerPoint presentations which have been created in .pptx format. A MS .pptx viewer can be downloaded for free from the Microsoft site.)

Open full PowerPoint Presentation:”The Way Forward Questions Options” [.ppt]: TheWayForwardPP

Selected slides from “The Way Forward Questions Options”

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 12

Slide 17

Open full PowerPoint Presentation:”The Way Forward Questions Options” [.pptx]: TheWayForwardPP

——————

Open full PowerPoint Presentation: “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform, Stanford team” [.ppt]: iCATBetaStanford[1]

Selected slides from ”Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform, Stanford team”

Slide 5

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 51

Open full PowerPoint Presentation: “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform, Stanford team” [.ppt]: iCATBetaStanford[1]

——————

Open full Can Celik PowerPoint Presentation: “Public Tooling” [.pptx]: Ppt0000069 CanCelic 

Selected slides from Can Celik’s PowerPoint Presentation: “Public Tooling”

Slide 4

Slide 7

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Open full Can Celik PowerPoint Presentation: “Public Tooling” [.pptx]: Ppt0000069 CanCelic 

 

Key documents and references:

1] ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting Agenda and background documents

2] Report, WHO FIC Council conference call, 16 February 2011, PDF format

3] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

4] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

5] PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform (DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch report with screenshots from the iCAT): http://wp.me/pKrrB-KK

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting 11-14 April: The Way Forward?

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting 11 – 14 April 2011: The Way Forward?

Post #70 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-ZN

The information in this mailing relates only to ICD-11, the revision of ICD-10 scheduled for completion and pilot implementation in 2014/15. It does not apply to the forthcoming US specific “Clinical Modification” of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

The Way Forward?

ICD-11 Revision maintains a website on a Google platform where key documents, agendas for iCAMP and workgroup meetings, background documents and presentations can be viewed and downloaded. Minutes or summaries of meetings aren’t usually posted publicly:

ICD-11 Revision: http://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/home

An ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting was held in Geneva, last week, between 11-14 April, for discussing the status of the revision of ICD-10 and development of ICD-11, for both content and software development, and reviewing the ICD revision “Roadmap” and Timeline.

A copy of the Meeting Agenda can be downloaded from the ICD-11 Revision site here or opened on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site here: ICD11 April 11 Meeting Agenda. There are some interesting comments in the Agenda Appendix on project funding, lack of resources, project management and lines of communication.

There are five PowerPoint presentations available to download from this page.

If you are interested in the ICD Revision process, in general, then I suggest visiting the site and viewing or downloading the following three presentations – these are slides only, with no notes or transcripts.

(The 2007 MS PowerPoint viewer is required to view presentations that have been created in .pptx format. A .pptx viewer can be downloaded free from the Microsoft site.)

.ppt file: The Way Forward

.pptx file: Can Celik’s Presentation: Public Tooling

.pptx file: Stanford’s Presentation: iCAT Beta

These three presentations can also be opened in the next post on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site and selected slides have been posted here:

Post #71: ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and presentations

 

“Community engagement”

In mid 2009, ICD Revision launched a number of platforms as channels of communication with the public and maintains a YouTube Channel, Facebook site, Twitter and blog. The ICD-11 blog has not been updated since October 2009 and queries left on the Facebook site by members of the public may take several months before a response is provided or may receive no response, at all.

The YouTube videos made to accompany various Geneva meetings can also be accessed on the ICD Revision YouTube page of my site. The two most recent videos give an overview of the iCAT drafting process and the extent of the ICD-11 “Content Model” – the 13 parameters through which ICD-11 categories can be described.

 

Visibility of iCAT drafting platforms

Following last week’s ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting, it is anticipated that ICD Revision may make a public announcement, within the next few weeks, clarifying how it intends to proceed in light of the fact that the timeline for the Beta drafting phase is slipping.

The meeting Agenda and PowerPoint slides suggest that ICD Revision is working towards making a version of the drafting platform publicly available around 16 May, this year, but that this may represent a compromise on previous plans and may be a “hybrid” between the Alpha and Beta drafting phases.

From the Agenda:

“Future Phases:

a. iCAT continued alpha development and evaluation ( 2010-11)

b. iCAT beta phase ( 2012-2015)

c. iCAT continuous maintenance phase ( 2015+)”

Earlier timelines had projected endorsement by the World Health Assembly (WHA) and pilot implementation of ICD-11 in the spring of 2014. But one presentation slide suggests approval by WHA in 2015.

It’s unconfirmed, but if the “Milestones” timeline has been revised to accommodate a later release of a Beta drafting phase platform and later publication of a Beta Draft, then WHO may have already decided to shift the pilot implementation date for ICD-11 by 12 months, to 2015.

That would mean that by the time ICD-11 is ready for dissemination, the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 would have already been put to bed and out in print two years prior to ICD-11 implementation.

It is intended that for ICD-11, all three volumes will be electronically published and capable of continuous updating in response to scientific developments (unlike ICD-10 where there are annual updates); there will also be electronic translations and print editions. The three volumes of ICD-11 are intended to be integrable with each other and also with some other classification systems. 

The drafting platforms are based on Web 2.0 applications and it is proposed that there will be stakeholder and end user participation in the Beta drafting phase.

The IT work and software development for the various alpha and beta drafting platforms and final product platforms is enormously complex; there is also the potential for far more textual content in ICD-11 than there was in ICD-10 and overall, this revision project represents a huge undertaking by an under-resourced organization.

 

The ICD-11 Alpha/Beta drafting process

Topic Advisory Group (TAG) Managing Editors overseeing the revision of the various chapters of ICD-10 have responsibility for recruiting external experts, via networking. The function of the external experts is to peer review proposals being made by TAG members or submitted by external professional bodies and institutions and to review or assist with the generation of textual content.

[In late 2009, I approached the WHO's Dr Robert Jakob to enquire whether and at what stage the names of external peer reviewers would be identified in the drafting platforms, as visible to the public. I also asked whether the reviewing of proposals as they progressed through the Workflow review system would be a transparent process that could be monitored by the public. Neither query produced a response from Dr Jakob.]

So there are many lines of communication to be maintained between WHO classification experts, IT consultants and technicians, Revision Steering Group members, TAG Managing Editors, TAG members and external experts. There is an ICD-11 Collaborative Authoring Workflow chart here: workflow-2.

At the Beta drafting stage, the proposal is that TAG Managing Editors will continue to recruit external peer reviewers to assist workgoups with reviewing of categories, proposals and generation of content, but that versions of the Beta drafting platform would be opened up to the public for viewing, and interested stakeholders would be able to register for limited input and interaction.

Stakeholders (or preferably, communities of stakeholders) would not have editing rights, per se, but the proposal is that they would comment on proposals, “score” proposals and make evidence-based suggestions which the TAG groups would then consider for approval, which would then be incorporated into the draft or rejected.  There has also been discussion of a “hierarchy” of levels of input according to professional status of stakeholders. How ICD Revision plans to verify the credentials of professionals isn’t clear, nor is it defined what would consitute a stakeholder “community”.

No static Beta Draft for public review and comment

Rather than release a static Beta draft for professional and public scrutiny in a feedback exercise for a pre-determined review period (as DSM-5 has already done and is scheduled to do again in August-September), the proposal appears to be for longer term feedback during an alpha/beta transition drafting phase on dynamic content that would be continuously updated, for example, on a four weekly cycle, to reflect the progress being made by the various Topic Advisory Groups in entering proposals for changes and populatation of textual content, and in response to external input.

So managing editors and members of the Topic Advisory Groups (mostly international clinicians and researchers juggling this work on top of their “day jobs”) are faced with maintaining lines of communication, largely via electronic means, between workgroup chairs, fellow workgroup members, external peer reviewers and WHO classification experts whilst also considering input from professional bodies, and working in the background on the drafting platform, while stakeholders are commenting and feeding suggestions into the process via the public versions of the drafting platforms. 

[Some organizations and professional bodies have been compiling and submitting proposals via an ICD Revision Proposal Form, since late 2009. There is no publicly available list of which institutions and bodies have been invited to submit proposals, which have responded, or where their submissions for changes to ICD-10 can be scrutinised, but copies of these submissions occasionally turn up online, having been published in the organs of these organizations.]

Selected slides from ”Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform, Stanford team”:

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 45

Slide 46

 

“…who will do all this work?”

Presentations and video clips of the WHO’s Dr. Bedirhan Üstün suggest a man buzzed up on information and internet technology: “cloud sourcing”, portals, public commenting and “scoring” of proposals, wikis, blogs,  internal and public “user communities”, drawing in the involvement of “Wikipedians” and other existing “editing communities” (one questions whether Dr Üstün has any experience of how Wikipedia functions and the problems inherent with some Wikipedia admins and editors, particularly in relation to editing of controversial scientific and medical areas), message boards, Facebook integration, “community engagement”…

But as the closing slide of one of last week’s presentations ruefully comments, “And just a small detail: who will do all this work?” [6]

ICD Revision and its IT and informatics advisors seem eager to use these internet applications because they exist, without having given due consideration to whether the WHO can fund, manage and sustain this level of public participation and interaction or whether this is the best way to approach the revision of the ICD.

How does ICD Revision intend to finance and recruit the personnel needed to manage the opening up of the drafting process to multiple platforms for stakeholder participation, given WHO’s limited resources when already, no-one can evidently be spared to even keep the ICD-11 blog updated or to respond to queries that members of the public have posted on ICD Revision’s existing public platforms and where Topic Advisory Group Chairs approached for brief clarifications are not always providing a response nine months down the line?

Who is going to pull this most ambitious project back down to earth?

Insufficient funding allocated and no Project Manager

From the Appendix to the April meeting Agenda:

“TAGs were supposed to be self-financed.  The TAG chair was supposed to have funding to carry out their revision work.”

“As this is a core WHO activity, we should have regular budget funds for this project.  The scale of this project is too big not to have funding for a project manager.”

“Additionally, ALL relevant WHO departments should have designated some financial and some human resources to this project as part of the collaborative effort.”

“…communication between the TAGs is growing, and it is beginning to become overwhelming in addition to clinical responsibilities.”

 

ICD-11 proposals for PVFS, ME and Chronic fatigue syndrome

Until some form of Alpha/Beta transition drafting platform is back in the public domain, it won’t be evident how much further forward the population of content for Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system has progressed since last November. As more information becomes available, I will update, and I will be posting a summary of how things stood in the iCAT last November in Post #72.

The meeting Agenda, selected slides and three of the PowerPoint presentations can be viewed/opened from Post #71, on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site, here:

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and presentations

 

Key documents and related posts:

1] ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting Agenda and background documents

2] Report, WHO FIC Council conference call, 16 February 2011, PDF format

3] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

4] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

5] PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform (DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch report with screenshots from the iCAT): http://wp.me/pKrrB-KK

6] Closing remarks, PowerPoint presentation: “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform”, Stanford team, 12.04.11, WHO, Geneva.

ICD-11 struggling to meet targets for release of Beta Draft in May

ICD-11 Revision Steering Group struggling to meet targets for release of Beta Draft platform in May

Post #69 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-ZB

The information in this mailing relates only to ICD-11, the forthcoming revision of ICD-10 that is scheduled for completion and pilot implementation in 2014/15. It does not apply to the forthcoming US specific Clinical Modification of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM, or to other Clinical Modifications of ICD-10, already in use.

Revision of the WHO’s ICD-10, the version of ICD in current use in the UK and over 110 countries worldwide, has been underway since 2007. The implementation date has already been shifted from 2012 to 2014/15.

A Beta Draft platform for ICD-11 had been scheduled for readiness by April, this year, for public release in May.

An ICD Revision Beta Requirements document states, “The Beta Phase will be open to [the] general public in May 2011 to enable structured input by interested parties subject to peer-review by relevant Technical Advisory Groups.”

But ICD Revision is evidently struggling to keep this project on track.

In October, last year, the Revision Steering Group’s “iCamp2″ meeting acknowledged that a considerable amount of work needed to be done if ICD Revision if targets for a May 2011 release of a Beta Draft platform were going to be met.

According to an October iCamp2 PowerPoint presentation, Frequent Criticisms, and iCamp2 meeting videos, targets for the population of content for the Alpha Draft had not been reached: less than 80% of the Terminology Definitions had been uploaded to the iCAT and less than the 20% target for full Content Model completion for the thousands of diseases and disorders classified within ICD had been met.

The Revision Steering Group (RSG) identified a number of barriers to keeping this very technically ambitious project on track: lack of funding; the amount of time required for drafting definitions and population of textual content according to the complex ICD-11 “Content Model”; recruitment of external experts for reviewing proposals and generating content; familiarising the various Topic Advisory Group (TAG) members with informatics and the functionality of the iCAT (the collaborative authoring platform through which ICD-11 is being drafted); the paucity of face-to-face meetings for TAG managing editors and workgroup members, (scattered across the globe and undertaking these roles, by electronic means, in addition to their professional commitments), and difficulties facilitating interaction between the various Topic Advisory Groups where diseases overlap with other chapters.

If ICD Revision is already struggling to maintain targets, motivation and interaction between its various Topic Advisory Groups, then management of the project once the Beta drafting phase is reached and the process opened up to [the projected] thousands of stakeholders is going to present ICD-11 RSG and TAG managing editors with considerable challenges. The ICD-11 iCamp YouTube commentaries have an air of brittle optimism about them.

I have already predicted that come May 2011, we might anticipate some scaling back of plans and/or a possible shift in the release date for the Beta drafting platform (and potentially a further shift in the final ICD-11 implementation date) in response to recognition that the WHO may have significantly overestimated its capacity for obtaining funding and resources to fulfil this most ambitious vision by 2014.

 

Report of a WHO-FIC (WHO Family of International Classifications) Council conference call

http://www.who.int/classifications/network/Council_report_2011_16Feb.pdf

or open  here on Dx Revision Watch site.

This document is the Report of a WHO-FIC Council conference call which took place between 14:00-15:30 Geneva Time, on Wednesday, February 16, 2011. It confirms that ICD Revision is debating whether to go public in May with a Beta drafting platform that falls short of targets for completion or whether to revise its schedule.

From Page 6

“ICD-11 Beta Draft and Timeline

“In the context of the review of preparations for the ICD-11 Beta release, there was a set of arguments for and against a postponement of the beta release.

“The status was summarized as in the slide below.

“In discussion the WHO FIC Council Members commented:

• It is essential to have a good product that goes out to the general public.
• Extra time is needed for the cross-cutting TAGs as most substantive review is starting lately.
• On the other hand, having no public input into the process is of concern.

“Wider input is necessary; and public and transparency input was a goal of the revision process. A hybrid model of opening the revision process to public comment and suggestions at the same time not a full scale beta phase with field trials may be a better solution.

“WHO thanked the Council for their valuable input and contribution to the decision-making process. The TAG input is going on and the RSG has to review the topic as well. Given the current stage and pace of work, however, it is unlikely that the ICD-11 will be fulfilling the criteria for a beta version in April – either in terms of content or the software preparations. The financial situation of WHO requires more austere measures rather than a full-scale RSG meeting as planned in 11-15 April. Accordingly a decision will be made and conveyed to all stakeholders.”

 

I will update if and when ICD Revision issues an information release on its decision about the Beta Drafting platform and clarifies its intentions for the extent of public participation, or when more information becomes available.

In November, the iCAT electronic authoring platform through which the Alpha Draft was being developed was taken out of the public domain. The server for the improved version of the iCAT, which provides the platform for drafting the Beta is sitting behind a password, here: http://icat.stanford.edu/.

Access and editing rights are currently restricted to WHO, Revision Steering Group, the various ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group managing editors and members, reviewers of content and proposals and IT technicians. But it was envisaged that at the Beta stage, the drafting platform would be opened up for public access and to interested stakeholders who register for limited imput.

The Alpha and Beta drafts are “works in progress”. Proposals as they stood in the iCAT collaborative drafting platform in November, last year, are that all three terms, PVFS, (B)ME and Chronic fatigue syndrome should be classified within ICD-11 Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system [1].

A meeting was expected to be held in Geneva, this week, and I will post further information as it becomes available on the ICD Revision Google site.

 

References:

1] PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform (Report with screenshots from the Alpha drafting stage iCAT)

2] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

3] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

ICD-11 Training videos, transcripts and Key Revision documentation

New ICD-11 Training videos, video transcripts and Key Revision documentation

Post #65 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-YI

The information in this post relates only to the development of ICD-11. It does not relate to the development of the forthcoming US specific “Clinical Modification” of ICD-10, known as “ICD-10-CM”.

A WHO ICD Revision meeting was held in Ankara, Turkey, at the end of February. The ICD Revision Paediatrics Topic Advisory Group (TAG) met to discuss “Diagnostic issues on Children and Youth”.

A number of meeting documents and videos have been posted on the ICD Revision site which are general background documents to the ICD-11 development process and not specific to the work of TAG Paediatrics or the focus of the Ankara meeting.

The two training videos (“ICD-11 Content Model Training” and “iCAT Training”) are now also available on YouTube. The training videos are aimed at those currently involved with the ICD-11 Revision process as WHO staff, IT technicians and the chairs, managing editors, members and external reviewers of the ICD-11 Topic Advisory Groups but will be of general interest to those following the development of ICD-11.

Content Model

One of the main differences between ICD-10 and ICD-11 will be the amount of textual content associated with ICD categories. In ICD-10, there is no textual content, definitions or descriptions for any of the three terms, PVFS, ME, CFS, and the relationship between these terms is not specified within ICD-10.

But the ICD-11 Content Model contains 13 parameters that may be used to describe ICD entities and these parameters are discussed in the training video. So if you are not familiar with the extent of the potential for textual content describing categories within ICD-11, this video sets this out. In the References is the URL for the latest version of the “Content Model Reference Guide” document.

The 13 Parameters through which an ICD-11 category can be described are:

1. ICD Entity Title; 2. Classification Properties; 3. Textual Definition(s); 4. Terms; 5. Body Structure Description; 6. Temporal Properties; 7. Severity Properties; 8. Manifestation Properties; 9. Causal Properties; 10. Functioning Properties; 11. Specific Condition Properties; 12. Treatment Properties; 13. Diagnostic Criteria.

iCAT

The second video describes the operation of the iCAT collaborative drafting platform through which the alpha and beta drafts are being developed. The platform is currently behind a password and accessible only to ICD Revision personnel who have editing rights, but it is understood that after the Beta Drafting stage has been reached, the iCAT should be accessible to stakeholders for limited input.

The iCAT had been in the public domain up until early November for public viewing only and I have some relevant screenshots of the population of content as it stood in the iCAT, at that point, here:

PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform: http://wp.me/pKrrB-KK

ICD-11 Training videos:

1] Content Model Training Video, YouTube:

Duration: 20: 38 mins

An MS Word document of the Content Model Training Video Script can be downloaded here:

Transcript of Content Model Training Video

 

2] iCAT Training Video, YouTube:

Duration: 29:12 mins

An MS Word document of the iCAT Training Video Script can be downloaded here:

Transcript of iCAT Training Video

References:

1] Ankara Paediatrics meeting 28 February-1 March 2011
Background documents page and Agenda

2] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

3] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

4] iCAT Drafting Platform browser
(Access and editing rights currently restricted to WHO and ICD Revision, TAG members and IT personnel):

APA postpones release of revised proposals for draft criteria for DSM-5 by three months

APA postpones release of revised proposals for draft criteria for DSM-5 by three months

Post #64 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Yu

Slip slidin’ away…

There will be no public review of revised draft criteria for DSM-5 categories this coming May.

APA Field Trials got off to a late start and the DSM-5 timeline continues to slip.

Online posting of draft disorders and criteria proposed by the DSM-5 Work Groups for new and existing mental disorders had been scheduled for May-July, this year. Revised criteria were expected to be posted online in May, for a period of approximately one month to allow the public to review proposals and submit comment.

But according to a revised Timeline on the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) DSM-5 Development site, this second public review exercise is now postponed until August-September 2011:

“August-September 2011: Online Posting of Revised Criteria. Following the internal review, revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted online for approximately one month to allow the public to provide feedback. This site will be closed for feedback by midnight on September 30, 2011.”

There are also references within the DSM-5 Timeline to ICD-10-CM and the forthcoming ICD-10-CM Partial Code Freeze, and to ICD-11.

ICD-11 Beta Draft

According to sources, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group are still working towards having a Beta Draft ready for May 2011.

But from a PowerPoint presentation posted briefly on the ICD-11 Revision website at the end of February, but swiftly removed following enquiries, evidently the WHO has been discussing the pros and cons of postponing the release of its own Beta Draft for public input until the autumn, or until the end of 2011, or possibly even May 2012.

Another ICD Revision document: ICD Revision Project Plan v 2.1, projects a date of May 2012 for release of the Beta Draft. Since there is no definitive and recent ICD-11 timeline on any of the WHO’s ICD Revision sites, and since ICD Revision is keeping schtum, it remains unclear at what point in the timeline a Beta Draft for ICD-11 will be released for public scrutiny and input (as opposed to purely internal use, as the Alpha Draft had been). I will update when more information becomes available.

The original dissemination date for ICD-11 had been 2012, with the timelines for the revision of ICD-10 and DSM-IV running more or less in parallel. But in 2007/8, the release date for ICD-11 was shifted to pilot implementation in 2014 and dissemination in 2015. A “pre-final draft” of ICD-11 is projected for March 2013 with submission for WHA endorsement in May 2014. ICD Revision are balancing “incomplete software, unsatisfactory content and incomplete review process” against reduced opportunity for public input and reduced public confidence, if the timeline for the Beta were to be extended.

In December 2009, the APA announced that the publication date for their DSM-5 was being extended to May 2013.

In January 2010, APA President, Alan F Schatzburg, MD, said:

“…the extension will permit better linking of DSM-5 to the U.S. implementation of the ICD-10-CM codes for all Medicare/Medicaid claims reporting, which are scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2013. APA will also continue to work with the World Health Organization (WHO) to harmonize DSM-5 with the mental and behavioral disorders section of ICD-11, which WHO plans to release no sooner than 2014.”

With a Partial Code Freeze looming this October for ICD-10-CM, the delays in starting field trials and now a three month postponement of publication of revised criteria for the second public review and comment period isn’t going to inspire confidence in a Task Force that has already come in for significant criticism of its oversight of the revision of DSM-IV.

Revised and expanded DSM-5 Timeline

http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/Timeline.aspx

(Picking up from July 2010, see webpage for full Timeline.)

[...]

July 2010 – July 2011: Invited Consumer Feedback. Throughout the field trials, feedback will be solicited from consumer and professional groups and during specialty meetings, such as NAMI, the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, the Science Advisory Board, Children and Adults.

July 2010 – December 2012: Drafting Text for DSM-5. Members of the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group will begin drafting their initial text for DSM-5, including possible revisions to text descriptions within each diagnostic chapter. Text of the criteria themselves must wait to be drafted until after the completion of field trials. During this time, case studies will also be developed, which will be published after DSM-5’s release in a series of case books.

January 2011: The APA presented to the National Center for Health Statistics an updated crosswalk between ICD-9-CM/DSM-IV codes and DSM-5 codes for discussion in the biannual ICD-CM revision meetings in March and September 2011 (see “March 2011”, below). Any “new” DSM-5 disorders will be subject to addition or deletion based on field trial data and APA BOT approval.

March-October 2011: Revised Chapter and Diagnostic Coding Structure of DSM-5. The American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization are working closely to ensure harmonization between DSM-5 and the forthcoming 10th edition of the International Classification of Diseases-Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM), which will be adopted for use in the U.S. by Medicare and Medicaid on October 1, 2013. In order allow for adequate time for user training and update of computerized coding systems, ICD-10-CM will freeze to further revisions on October 1, 2011. Final decisions on the chapter organization of DSM-5 will be discussed at the September 2011 National Center for Vital and Health Statistics’ annual ICD-10-CM revision conference. The harmonized DSM-5/ICD-10-CM will serve as a prototype for ICD-11, which is scheduled for publication in 2014. However, since the coding structure for ICD-11 is expected to change, DSM-5 will use the closest approximation of ICD-10-CM codes to the disorders defined by DSM-5. (See my Footnotes)

August-September 2011: Revisions to Proposed Criteria. Based on results from the first phase of field trials and from consumer and advocacy feedback, the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group members will make revisions to the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and dimensional measures. These revised criteria and measures will be tested in a second phase of field trials.

August – September 2011: Review of Revised Criteria. Revised proposed criteria will be subjected to internal review, including a review by the DSM-5 Task Force and Research Group and by other relevant work groups.

August-September 2011: Online Posting of Revised Criteria. Following the internal review, revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted online for approximately one month to allow the public to provide feedback. This site will be closed for feedback by midnight on September 30, 2011.

September 2011 – February 2012: DSM-5 Field Trials, Phase II. The second phase of field trials testing will focus on those diagnostic criteria and dimensional measures that required modification based on the results of the Phase I field trials. This time period will include data collection and analysis.

October 1, 2011: Although ICD-10-CM codes will not go into effect in the U.S. until October 1, 2013, most will be approved by October 1, 2011, to allow insurance companies enough time to reprogram computers for claims data and train health professionals. However, the ICD-10-CM coding system will not be locked in as of

October 1, 2011: Additional code changes will be permitted between October 2011 and October 2013 to introduce “new” disorders or to correct obvious errors of current disorders. In addition, proposals for code changes in ICD-10-CM will be routinely considered on an annual basis in 2014—after ICD-10-CM has been officially adopted.

February – August 2012: Prepare Final Draft Text (including revisions to criteria based on findings from Phase II of DSM-5 Field Trials). The DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups will prepare the final draft text and criteria for review.

March 2012: Presentation of final DSM-5 chapter organization to APA Board of Trustees.

August 2012: Final Review. The APA will release the revised draft criteria to the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees for final review.

September – November 2012: Final Revisions to Draft Criteria. Work group members will make their last round of revisions to draft criteria based on feedback from APA’s Assembly and Board of Trustees.

November 2012: APA Assembly Approval of DSM-5.

December 2012: APA Board of Trustees Approval of DSM-5. Following approval from the Board of Trustees, the final completed manuscript will be submitted to the APA’s publishing division, American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

May 2013: Publication of DSM-5. The release of DSM-5 will take place during the APA’s 2013 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, CA.

October 1, 2013: Mandatory use of ICD-10-CM code numbers in DSM-5 for insurance claims.

Ed: Footnotes: The “harmonization” of DSM-5 and ICD-11

The APA participates with the WHO in the “International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders” (Chapter 5) and a “DSM-ICD Harmonization Coordination Group”.

There is already a degree of correspondence between DSM-IV and Chapter V of ICD-10. For the next editions, the APA and the WHO have committed as far as possible:

“To facilitate the achievement of the highest possible extent of uniformity and harmonization between ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders and DSM-V disorders and their diagnostic criteria.”

with the objective that

“The WHO and APA should make all attempts to ensure that in their core versions, the category names, glossary descriptions and criteria are identical for ICD and DSM.”

But the WHO acknowledges there may be areas where congruency between the two systems may not be achievable.

As the iCAT (the ICD-11 electronic collaborative drafting platform) stood last November, two new categories were listed in the Linearized Chapter 5, F45 – F48.0 (Somatoform Disorders) codes. It is understood from ICD documentation (DIFF File – Changes from ICD-10 [MS Excel doc. Retrieved 29.09.10; no longer available on 01.10.10]) that child categories F45.40 and F45.41 are new entities for ICD-11 [1].

Note the ICD-11 categories between F45 – F48.0, as they stood in the iCAT drafting platform last November, do not mirror current proposals of the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorder” Work Group for renaming the “Somatoform Disorders” categories of DSM-IV to “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and combining a number of existing categories under a new rubric, “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)”, and the more recently proposed “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD)” [2][3].

[1] Screenshot iCAT, ICD-11: Chapter 5: F45 – F48.0: http://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/2icatchapter5f45somatoform.png  

[2] Article: Erasing the interface between psychiatry and medicine (DSM-5), Chapman S, 13 February 2011: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Vn

[3] Article: Revisions to DSM-5 proposals on 14.01.11: New category proposed “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder, Chapman S, 16 January 2011: http://wp.me/pKrrB-St  

[4] DSM-5 Development website: http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/Timeline.aspx