WHO releases ICD-11 Beta drafting platform

WHO releases ICD-11 Beta drafting platform

Post #170 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-28K

Yesterday, May 14, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the launch of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform.

Press Release here and below.

This publicly viewable platform replaces the Alpha drafting platform that has been viewable since mid 2011. ICD-11 Revision Topic Advisory Groups are using a separate drafting platform with greater functionality than the platform launched yesterday.

Interested stakeholders can register for increased access and to interact with the Beta drafting platform.

In terms of functionality, the Beta platform does not appear to incorporate any additional features over the Alpha. 

In terms of population of content, some entities have text populated for Definitions, others are still waiting for provisional definitions. Some entities have very few “Content Model” parameters listed, others have the following: Parents; Definition; Synonyms; Exclusions; Narrower Terms; Causal Mechanisms; Body Site.

It’s not evident how many of the proposed 13 “Content Model” parameters that describe an ICD-11 entity term will eventually be populated for any given entity. The original list of 13 ”Content Model” parameters has been modified since early 2011, but no new documentation has been publicly released that sets out the new parameters.

More information on the Beta drafting platform here:

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

The International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision is due by 2015

Participate in the ICD Revision

Beta phase participants will have the opportunity to:

• Make Comments
• Make Proposals
• Propose definitions of diseases in a structured way
• Participate in Field Trials
• Assist in translating ICD into other languages

Video invitation to participate
Frequently Asked Questions About ICD-11
ICD Information Sheet

WHO video invitation from Dr Marie-Paule Kieny on ICD-11

For the first time, experts in the public health community who work with patient diagnosis and treatment have an opportunity to contribute to the development of the next version of the ICD. This is WHO’s publication that ensures all aspects of the health community refer to diseases and health conditions in a consistent way.

WHO is calling on experts, health providers and stakeholders from around the world to participate in the 11th revision process. The final ICD-11 will be released in 2015.

With your help, this classification will be more comprehensive than ever before.

 

The Beta drafting platform can be found here:

Linearizations:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en

Foundation Component:

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

User Guide:

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

Listing for Chronic fatigue syndrome:

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

WHO Press Release

May 2102

http://www.who.int/features/2012/international_classification_disease/en/

WHO seeks health experts’ input for 11th International Classification of Diseases

For the first time, experts in the public health community who work with patient diagnosis and treatment have an opportunity to contribute to the development of the next version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which is WHO’s publication that ensures all members of the health community refer to diseases and health conditions in a consistent way.

WHO/Jim Holmes

WHO is releasing the beta version of what will be ICD-11 on a wiki-type platform that allows stakeholder comments to be added after peer review. The final ICD-11 will be released in 2015.

WHO encourages anyone interested to comment to develop a more comprehensive classification.

Foundation for reliable health data

The ICD is the foundation for the identification of health trends and statistics globally. Receiving input from health experts will greatly improve the representation from current medical practice and create insight from a broader diversity of medicine.

“Literally this is what doctors use to diagnose a patient,” says Tevfik Bedirhan Ustun, coordinator in the Department of Health Statistics and Information Systems. “It is how we define the cause of death when a person dies. In research, it is how we classify health problems based on evidence.”

The ICD is the gold standard for defining and reporting diseases and health conditions. It allows the world to compare and share health information using a common language.

In addition to health providers, the ICD is a key tool used by epidemiologists to study disease patterns, insurers, national health programme managers, data collection specialists, and others who track global health progress and how health resources are spent.

ICD-11 innovations

Using advances in information technology, this ICD revision will allow users to collect data on cause of death, advances in science and medicine, emerging diseases and health conditions, and compare information across the globe with more ease and diversity in the service of public health and clinical reporting.

Some of the key new features of the 11th version will include:

• a new chapter on traditional medicine, which constitutes a significant part of health care in many parts of the world;
• it will be ready to use with electronic health records and applications;
• it will updated through the development phase to reflect new knowledge as it is added to the classification; and
• it will be produced in multiple languages through the development phase.

Further coverage:

http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/65415-who-seeks-inputs-for-key-disease-database.html

WHO seeks inputs for key disease database

Tuesday, 15 May 2012 00:29
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi

The World Health Organisation (WHO) in a maiden initiative has invited experts and users to contribute online to the development of its next version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) capturing mortality and morbidity data.

The world’s standard tool provides a picture of the general health of countries and populations and its 11th version is now being developed through an innovative, collaborative process to be released in 2015.

“This is for the first time WHO is calling on experts and users to participate in the revision process through a web-based platform. The outcome will be a classification that is based on user input and needs,” a WHO official said.

Users include physicians, nurses, other providers, researchers, health information managers and coders, health information technology workers, policy-makers, insurers and patient organisations.

WHO will soon be releasing the beta version of what will be ICD-11 on a wiki-type platform that allows stakeholder comments to be added after peer review.

All Member States are expected to use the most current version of the ICD for reporting death and disease statistics (according to the WHO Nomenclature Regulations adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1967), the official added.

Regarding the steps for participating, he elaborated that experts and stakeholders will have to register for a participant account on the web portal which will be open for comments over the next three years and accepted changes will be reflected immediately.

Some of the key new features of the 11th version will include a new chapter on traditional medicine, which constitutes a significant part of health care in many parts of the world and ready to use with electronic health records and applications.

The ICD is translated into 43 languages and is used by all 117 member countries. The ICD holds importance as it provides a common language for reporting and monitoring diseases. This allows the world to compare and share data in a consistent and standard way – between hospitals, regions and countries and over periods of time. It facilitates the collection and storage of data for analysis and evidence-based decision-making, the official said.

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

CMS expected to announce proposal for new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April

CMS expected to announce proposal for new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April

Post #153 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-218

In a press release on February 16, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen G. Sebelius, announced HHS’s intent to initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with ICD-10-CM diagnosis and procedure codes.

The final rule adopting ICD-10-CM as a standard was published in January 2009, when a compliance date of October 1, 2013 had been set – a delay of two years from the compliance date initially specified in the 2008 proposed rule.

Several sites covering CMS’s intention to delay implementation are citing April as the month in which a new timeline for ICD-10-CM is expected to be announced:

HC Pro

New ICD-10 implementation date expected in April

ICD-10 Trainer | March 21, 2012

CMS plans to announce a new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April, according to representatives of CMS and MassHealth, a public health insurance program for low and medium-income residents in Massachusetts.

Renee Washington, director of customer system integration at MassHealth, revealed the time frame for the much anticipated announcement during the Massachusetts Health Data Consortium’s March 9 conference call. Renee Richard from the CMS Regional Office in Boston confirmed this information during the call…

HC Pro Just Coding

Healthcare News: CMS targets April for release of new ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation date

March 20, 2012

CMS expects to release a new ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation date sometime in April. That date will be the same for payers and providers. (Excerpt from a member only article.)

ICD-10 Watch (no connection with this site which was formerly known as “DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch”)

It’s about time for an ICD-10 delay announcement

Carl Natale | March 30, 2012

It looks like next week is when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) will announce their proposals for a new ICD-10 timeline.

Which should mean they will publish it in the Federal Register and take public comment for 60 days. Then they will consider the feedback and issue a final rule. Who knows when that will be…

Read full round up by Carl Natale

 

Christopher Chute, MD, (Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group) et al set out the case for delaying implementation, in this paper published at Health Affairs:

Health Affairs

At the Intersection of Health, Health Care, and Policy

There Are Important Reasons For Delaying Implementation Of The New ICD-10 Coding System

Abstract: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.abstract

Full free text: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.full

PDF: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.full.pdf+html

Published online before print March 2012, doi: Health Aff March 2012 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1258

There Are Important Reasons For Delaying Implementation Of The New ICD-10 Coding System

Christopher G. Chute 1,*, Stanley M. Huff 2, James A. Ferguson 3, James M. Walker 4 and John D. Halamka 5

Author Affiliations

1 Christopher G. Chute (chute@mayo.edu) is a professor of biomedical informatics at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota.
2 Stanley M. Huff is a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Utah, in [please provide city], and chief medical informatics officer at Intermountain Healthcare, in Murray, Utah.
3 James A. Ferguson is a fellow at the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy and vice president of health information technology strategy and policy for Kaiser Permanente, in Oakland, California.
4 James M. Walker is chief health information officer of Geisinger Health System, in Danville, Pennsylvania.
5 John D. Halamka is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, chief information officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and chief information officer at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
*Corresponding author

Abstract

Federal authorities have recently signaled that they would consider delaying some aspects of implementation of the newest version of the International Classification of Diseases, known as ICD-10-CM, a coding system used to define health care charges and diagnoses. Some industry groups have reacted with dismay, and many providers with relief. We are concerned that adopting this new classification system for reimbursement will be disruptive and costly and will offer no material improvement over the current system. Because the health care community is also working to integrate health information technology and federal meaningful-use specifications that require the adoption of other complex coding standardization systems (such as the system called SNOMED CT), we recommend that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services consider delaying the adoption of ICD-10-CM. Policy makers should also begin planning now for ways to make the coming transition to ICD-11 as tolerable as possible for the health care and payment community.

Full free text

Tom Sullivan, for Health Care IT News, asks Chute, “Why not just skip right to ICD-11?”

Why not just skip right to ICD-11?

Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT| March 13, 2012

…While industry associations battle over the code set’s future, and HHS figures out when the new compliance deadline will be, the World Health Organization (WHO) is already moving toward ICD-11, promising a beta in 2014 to be followed by the final version in 2015. Should that slip until 2016, U.S. health entities will still be settling into ICD-10 when ICD-11 arrives – meaning that shortly thereafter, we will be right back where we are now: Behind the times, on the previous ICD incarnation.

Are we repeating our own faulty history?

“That almost assuredly will be the case,” said Chris Chute, MD, DrPH, who spearheads the Mayo Clinic’s bioinformatics division and chairs the WHO’s ICD-11 Revision Steering Group…

Read full article by Tom Sullivan

Rhonda Butler argues why US health care providers and industry can’t just ditch ICD-10-CM and wait for ICD-11 in 2015/16:

3M Health Information

We Can’t Skip ICD-10 and Go Straight to ICD-11

Rhonda Butler | March 26, 2012

Since the recent announcement by CMS that ICD-10 implementation will be delayed for certain healthcare entities, some industry pundits have argued, “Let’s just skip ICD-10 and go straight to ICD-11.”

Skipping ICD-10 assumes that we haven’t started implementing ICD-10. Well, the U.S. did start—19 years ago.

What have we been doing for the last 19 years…

Read full article

Letter from Justine M. Carr, MD, Chairperson, National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics to The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, March 2, 2012

Contains ICD-10-CM timeline

    Re: Possible Delay of Deadline for Implementation of ICD-10 Code Sets

James Phillips asks Michael First (Editor of DSM-IV-TR, Consultant to WHO ICD-11 Revision) how DSM-5 relates to ICD:

Psychiatric Times

DSM-5 In the Homestretch—1. Integrating the Coding Systems

James Phillips, MD | 07 March 2012

With DSM-5 scheduled for publication a little more than a year from now, we may safely assume that, barring unannounced surprises from, say, the APA Scientific Review Committee, what we will see on the DSM-5 Web site is what we will get. With that in mind it’s time to review what we will indeed get. But before moving to significant changes in the major disorder categories, we should remind ourselves where DSM-5 fits into the larger picture of coding mental illnesses.

There are, in case you have forgotten, two classificatory systems of mental disorders—the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), produced by the American Psychiatric Association. How are they related? It is a question that has confused me, and I assume, some of my psychiatric colleagues as well as others—other mental health professionals, and still others. For an answer to this question I asked Michael First, MD, Editor of DSM-IV-TR, Consultant on the WHO ICD-11 revision…

Read full commentary

 

Related posts:

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date  February 16, 2012

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)  February 23, 2012

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)

Post #147 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Xw

This material relates to the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of the WHO ICD-10, known as “ICD-10-CM.” It does not relate to other country specific clinical modifications of ICD-10.

Update @ February 27: There has been considerable coverage of HHS’s announcement to delay the compliance date for ICD-10-CM.

Further coverage:

Press release

HCPro

Industry Experts Respond to Announcement of ICD-10 Deadline Delay

February 27, 2012

Industry experts respond as HHS has confirmed its intent to delay the ICD-10 compliance deadline, according to its latest press release. HCPro contacted numerous industry experts for their thoughts on the recent announcement by CMS. Although reactions are mixed, experts agree that forward progress on ICD-10 readiness for providers is essential…

ICD-10 may not be postponed for everyone

Ken Kerry | February 20, 2012

One school of thought is that it will be delayed for a year or two; but CMS’ announcement mentioned that only “certain healthcare entities” would be granted a reprieve. Which entities? We don’t know yet.

---

On January 16, 2009, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register mandating adoption of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS to replace ICD-9-CM in HIPAA transactions, with a compliance date of October 1, 2013.

Until implementation, codes in ICD-10-CM are not valid for any purpose or use. ICD-10-CM has been subject to partial code freeze since October 1, 2011.

The 2012 release of ICD-10-CM is now available from the CDC site and replaces the December 2011 release:

International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM)

 

HHS announces delay for compliance

On February 16, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a press release announcing that HHS will initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities are required to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “We have heard from many in the provider community who have concerns about the administrative burdens they face in the years ahead.  We are committing to work with the provider community to reexamine the pace at which HHS and the nation implement these important improvements to our health care system.”

HHS has yet to announce a new compliance date but it is speculated that the delay would be for at least one year, rather than for a few months.

Related content:

Post #142 | February 16, 2012

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

For background see: 

Could the U.S skip ICD-10 and leapfrog directly to ICD-11?

February 16, 2012 | Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT

HIMSS statement, February 17, 2012

HIMSS Calls for Maintaining October 1, 2013 ICD-10 Implementation Deadline for Most Healthcare Entities

Information Week report

ICD-10 Delay Worries Health IT Leaders

The train’s already left the station for organizations that have been prepping for an October 2013 ICD-10 deadline, say health IT organizations and CIOs.

Nicole Lewis | InformationWeek |February 22, 2012

Practice Fusion

HHS Asks for a Delay to the Start of ICD-10

Robert Rowley, MD | February 21, 2012

AHIMA issues statement and press release

Yesterday, American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) issued a statement and press release in response to HHS Sebelius’ February 16 announcement to delay the ICD-10-CM compliance date.

AHIMA represents more than 64,000 Health Information Management professionals in the United States and around the world. www.ahima.org

American Health Information Management Association statement and press release

http://journal.ahima.org/2012/02/22/ten-reasons-to-not-delay-icd-10/

     AHIMA statement IDC-10 Delay 02.17.12

Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10

Feb 22, 2012 01:12 pm | posted by Kevin Heubusch | ICD-10

This week AHIMA announced it will reach out to leaders at the Department of Health and Human Services and urge there be no delay in the implementation of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS.

“We recommend that HHS reach out to the full healthcare community and gather more information about the great strides many have achieved— in good faith—since the ICD-10 deadline was set in January 2009,” said AHIMA CEO Lynne Thomas Gordon, quoted in a statement.

Further, AHIMA encouraged the healthcare community to continue its implementation planning and not let up its efforts.

In a statement released today, AHIMA offered 10 reasons not to delay ICD-10 implementation.

Ten Reasons We Need ICD-10 Now

1. It Enhances Quality Measures. Without ICD-10 data, serious gaps will remain in the healthcare community’s ability to extract important patient health information needed for physicians and others to measure quality care.
2. Research Capabilities Will Improve Patient Care. Data could be used in a more meaningful way to enable better understanding of complications, better design of clinically robust algorithms, and better tracking of the outcomes of care. Greater detail offers the ability to discover previously-unrecognized relationships or uncover phenomenon such as incipient epidemics early.
3. Significant Progress Has Already Been Made. For several years, hospitals and healthcare systems, health plans, vendors and academic institutions have been preparing in good faith to put systems in place to transition to ICD-10. A delay would cause an unnecessary setback.
4. Education Programs Are Underway. To ready the next generation of HIM professionals, academic institutions have set their curriculum for two-year, four-year, and graduate programs to include ICD-10.
5. Other Healthcare Initiatives Need ICD-10. ICD-10 is the foundation needed to support other national healthcare initiatives such as meaningful use, value-based purchasing, payment reform, quality reporting and accountable care organizations. Electronic health record systems being adopted today are ICD-10 compatible. Without ICD-10, the value of these other efforts is greatly diminished.
6. It Reduces Fraud. With ICD-10, the detail of health procedures will be easier to track, reducing opportunities for unscrupulous practitioners to cheat the system.
7. It Promotes Cost Effectiveness. More accurate information will reduce waste, lead to more accurate reimbursement and help ensure that healthcare dollars are used efficiently.

If ICD-10 Is Delayed:

1. Resources Will Be Lost. For the last three years, the healthcare community has invested millions of dollars analyzing their systems, aligning resources and training staff for the ICD-10 transition.
2. Costs Will Increase. A delay will cause increased implementation costs, as many healthcare providers and health plans will need to maintain two systems (ICD-9 and ICD-10). Delaying ICD-10 increases the cost of keeping personnel trained and prepared for the transition. Other systems, business processes, and operational elements also will need upgrading. More resources will be needed to repeat some implementation activities if ICD-10 is delayed.
3. Jobs Will Be Lost.To prepare for the transition, many hospitals and healthcare providers have hired additional staff whose jobs will be affected if ICD-10 is delayed.

And Finally…

We Can’t Wait for ICD-11. The foundations of ICD-11 rest on ICD-10 and the foundation must be laid before a solid structure can be built. ICD-11 will require the development and integration of a new clinical modification system. Even under ideal circumstances, ICD-11 is still several years away from being ready for implementation in the United States.*

In the report by Tom Sullivan (Health Care Finance News, February 16, 2012), Christopher Chute, MD, who chairs the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, warned of a possible further delay for completion of ICD-11, from 2015 to 2016.

Implementation of ICD-11 has already been shifted from 2012 to 2014, then last year, to 2015+. These are projections for pilot, then global implementation for ICD-11.

The DHHS Office of the Secretary Final Rule document, February 2009, stated:

“We estimated that the earliest projected date to begin rulemaking for implementation of a U.S. clinical modification of ICD–11 would be the year 2020.”

Canada uses a clinical modification of ICD-10 called ICD-10-CA. WHO-FIC meeting materials suggest that Canada might not move onto ICD-11 (or a modification of ICD-11) until 2018+.  Australia, which uses a clinical modification of ICD-10 called ICD-10-AM, is discussing potentially earlier adoption of ICD-11.

“Bodily Distress Disorders” to replace “Somatoform Disorders” for ICD-11?

“Bodily Distress Disorders” to replace “Somatoform Disorders” for ICD-11?

Post #145 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Vx

The information in this report relates only to proposals for the forthcoming ICD-11; it does not relate to ICD-10 or the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of ICD-10, ICD-10-CM.

Part One

This report contains an important update on proposals for ICD-11 Chapter 5: Mental and behavioural disorders.

In a February 16 report by Tom Sullivan for Health Care Finance News, Christopher Chute, MD, who chairs the ICD Revision Steering Group, warns of a possible delay for completion of ICD-11 from 2015 to 2016. Nevertheless, the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform remains scheduled to launch in May, this year.

The Beta drafting platform will take the form of a publicly viewable browser similar to the Alpha drafting platform that has been in the public domain since last May.

You can view the Alpha Drafting Browser here:

Foundation Component view:

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

Morbidity Linearization view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en

The Morbidity Linearization is the view that includes (what may be temporarily assigned) sorting codes. These codes are likely to change as chapter organization progresses. Click on the small grey arrows next to the chapters and categories to display parent > child > grandchildren hierarchies. Click on individual terms to display descriptive content in the right hand frame of the Alpha Browser.

Textual content for ICD-11 is in the process of being written and population of content for some chapters is more advanced than others. Content for some of these “ICD-11 Content Model parameters” may display: ID legacy code from ICD-10 (where applicable); Definition; Inclusions; Exclusions; Body Site; Causal Mechanism; Signs and Symptoms.

(For ICD-11, entities will be defined through up to 13 “Content Model parameters” across all chapters – considerably more descriptive content than in ICD-10 and a significant workload for the Topic Advisory Group members and managers who are generating the content for ICD-11.)

The Alpha Browser User Guide is here:

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

This page of the User Guide sets out differences between Foundation view and Morbidity Linearization view.

The various ICD Revision Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs) are carrying out their work on a separate, more complex, multi-author drafting platform. Editing histories and “Category and Discussion Notes” are recorded so the progress of proposals and reorganization of ICD entities can be tracked, as the draft evolves.

When the Beta drafting platform launches, interested stakeholders will be invited to register for increased access and interaction with the drafting process by submitting comments and suggestions on draft content and proposals.

It is also possible to register for increased access to the Alpha drafting platform and for downloading PDFs of drafts for the “Print Versions for the ICD-11 Alpha Morbidity Linearization” for all 25 chapters of ICD-11. These are obtainable, once registered and logged in, from the Linearization > Print Versions tab.

Caveats

I’m going to reiterate the ICD-11 Alpha Browser Caveats because it’s important to understand that the ICD-11 Alpha draft is a work in progress – not a static document – and is subject to change.

The draft is updated on a (usually) daily basis; when you view the Alpha Browser, you are viewing a “snapshot” of how the publicly viewable draft stood at the end of the previous day; not all chapters are as advanced as others for reorganization or population of content; the draft is incomplete and may contain errors and omissions.

The codes and “sorting labels” assigned to ICD parent classes, child and grandchildren terms are subject to change as reorganization of the chapters progresses. The Alpha draft has not yet been approved by the Topic Advisory Groups, Revision Steering Group or WHO and proposals for, and content in the draft may not progress to the Beta drafting stage – so be mindful of the fact that the draft is in a state of flux.

We may have a clearer idea of what is being proposed once the Beta drafting platform is released, but as it currently stands, the Alpha lacks clarity; not all textual content will have been generated and uploaded for terms imported from ICD-10 and there may be no definitions or other textual content displaying for proposed new terms.

Two chapters that are a focus of this site are Chapter 5: Mental and behavioural disorders and Chapter 6: Disorders of the nervous system (the Neurology chapter). (ICD-11 is dropping the use of Roman numerals.)

I won’t be reporting on specific categories in Chapter 6 in this post but will do a follow up post for Chapter 6 in a few days; again, there is a lack of clarity for Chapter 6 and requests for specific clarifications, last year, from the chair of Topic Advisory Group Neurology and the lead WHO Secretariat for TAG Neurology have met with no response.

Continued on Page 2: Somatoform Disorders in ICD-10; Somatoform Disorders to Bodily Distress Disorders for ICD-11?

Pages: 1 2

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

Post #142 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Ux

Coverage today of the announcement by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius of intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date.

Will American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees take this opportunity to delay its DSM-5 timeline, take a breathing space, and reconsider its controversial proposals for DSM-5, or submit them to independent scientific scrutiny?

Link to report at end of post also quotes Chris Chute, Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, on possible delay for completion of ICD-11 from 2015 to 2016 – no surprise that ICD Revision may be considering another shift of timeline given the technical ambitiousness of the revision project, the lack of resources and slipping targets for the Alpha and Beta drafts.

Tom Sullivan reports:

Should the U.S. delay the ICD-10 compliance deadline just one year, until 2014, then the WHO will have a beta of ICD-11 ready. And if Sisko’s gut is correct, and the new ICD-10 deadline flows into 2015, well, then a final version of ICD-11 will be fast-approaching.

When it arrives, currently slated for 2015 (but Chute said it could be 2016), the underlying structure of ICD-11 will be profoundly different than any anterior ICD.

“ICD-11 will be significantly more sophisticated, both from a computer science perspective and from a medical content and description perspective,” Chute explains. “Each rubric in ICD-11 will have a fairly rich information space and metadata around it. It will have an English language definition, it will have logical linkages with attributes to SNOMED, it will have applicable genomic information and underpinnings linked to HUGO, human genome standard representations.”

ICD-10, as a point of contrast, provides a title, a string, a number, inclusion terms and an index. No definitions. No linkages because it was created before the Internet, let alone the semantic web. No rich information space.”

 

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10 compliance date

February 16, 2012 | Carl Natale, Editor, ICD10Watch

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius confirmed Wednesday that they will change the ICD-10 timeline.

A HHS press release stated they “will initiate the rulemaking process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10).”

On Tuesday, Marilyn Tavenner, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said the agency will examine the ICD-10-CM/PCS timeline. Tavenner made the statement at a conference of the American Medical Association (AMA) National Advocacy Conference. The AMA has declared vigorous opposition to the medical coding system citing the cost, complexity and lack of perceived benefit to patients… Read on

 

CMS Public Affairs Press Release:

http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/02/20120216a.html

News Release
Contact: CMS Public Affairs
(202) 690-6145

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 16, 2012

HHS announces intent to delay ICD-10 compliance date

As part of President Obama’s commitment to reducing regulatory burden, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius today announced that HHS will initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10).

The final rule adopting ICD-10 as a standard was published in January 2009 and set a compliance date of October 1, 2013 – a delay of two years from the compliance date initially specified in the 2008 proposed rule. HHS will announce a new compliance date moving forward.

“ICD-10 codes are important to many positive improvements in our health care system,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “We have heard from many in the provider community who have concerns about the administrative burdens they face in the years ahead. We are committing to work with the provider community to reexamine the pace at which HHS and the nation implement these important improvements to our health care system.”

ICD-10 codes provide more robust and specific data that will help improve patient care and enable the exchange of our health care data with that of the rest of the world that has long been using ICD-10. Entities covered under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) will be required to use the ICD-10 diagnostic and procedure codes.

Report:

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/could-us-skip-icd-10-and-leapfrog-directly-icd-11

Could the U.S skip ICD-10 and leapfrog directly to ICD-11?

February 16, 2012 | Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT

Practice Central on ICD-10-CM transition; APA Monitor and WHO Reed on ICD-11

Two articles on forthcoming classification systems: the first on ICD-10-CM from Practice Central; the second on ICD-11 from the February 2012 edition of the American Psychological Association’s “Monitor on Psychology”

Post #140 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Tt

Update: Medicare could delay burdensome rules on doctors | Julian Pecquet, for The Hill, February 14, 2012

“The acting head of the Medicare agency said Tuesday that she is considering giving the nation’s doctors more time to switch to a new insurance coding system that critics say would cost millions of dollars for little gain to patients.

“Marilyn Tavenner, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a conference of the American Medical Association (AMA) that her agency could delay adoption of the so-called ICD-10 system. Current law calls for physicians to adopt the new codes next year…

“…Speaking to reporters after her prepared remarks, Tavenner said her office would formally announce its intention to craft new regulations “within the next few days.”

ICD-10 Deadline Review Update | Andrea Kraynak, for HealthLeaders Media, February 15, 2012

“Big news regarding the ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation timeline came Tuesday morning during the American Medical Association (AMA) National Advocacy Conference in Washington, DC.”

“Per CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner, CMS plans to revisit the current implementation deadline of October 1, 2013. Tavenner said CMS wants to reexamine the pace of implementing ICD-10 and reduce physicians’ administrative burden, according to an AMA tweet…”

Practice Central: Resources for Practicing Psychologists

Practice Central, a service of the APA Practice Organization (APAPO), supports practicing psychologists in all settings and at all stages of their career. APAPO is a companion organization to the American Psychological Association. Our mission is to advance and protect your ability to practice psychology.

http://www.apapracticecentral.org/update/2012/02-09/transition.aspx

Practice Update | February 2012

Transition to the ICD-10-CM: What does it mean for psychologists?

Psychologists should be aware of and prepare for the mandatory shift to ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes in October 2013

By Practice Research and Policy staff

February 9, 2012—Beginning October 1, 2013 all entities, including health care providers, covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) must convert to using the ICD-10-CM diagnosis code sets. The mandate represents a fundamental shift for many psychologists and other mental health professionals who are far more attuned to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Most psychologists were trained using some version of DSM. For other health care providers, the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) – which contains a chapter on mental disorders – is the classification standard.

Over the years, efforts to harmonize these two classifications have resulted in systems with similar (often identical) codes and diagnostic names. In fact, even if psychologists record DSM diagnostic codes for billing purposes, payers recognize the codes as ICD-9-CM – the official version of ICD currently used in the United States. Since 2003, the ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes have been mandated for third-party billing and reporting by HIPAA for all…

Read full article here

 

Dr Geoffrey M. Reed, PhD, Senior Project Officer, WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, is seconded to WHO through IUPsyS (International Union for Psychological Science). Dr Reed co-ordinates the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders.

Meetings of the International Advisory Group are chaired by Steven Hyman, MD, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, a former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and DSM-5 Task Force Member.

The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse will also be managing the technical part of the revision of Diseases of the Nervous System (currently Chapter VI), as it is doing for Chapter V.

February 2012 edition of the American Psychological Association’s “Monitor on Psychology”:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/02/disorder-classification.aspx

Feature

Improving disorder classification, worldwide

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

By Rebecca A. Clay

February 2012, Vol 43, No. 2

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…

Read full article here

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

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

ICD-11 Beta drafting platform for release in May 2012

ICD-11 Beta drafting platform for release in May 2012

Post #139 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1SE

ICD-11 Beta drafting platform

ICD Revision on Facebook has announced that a ‎4th Face to Face meeting of the ICD Revision Topic Advisory Group for Internal Medicine (TAG IM) was held recently, in Tokyo.

No agenda, meeting materials or documents have been posted on the ICD-11 Revision Google site but a PowerPoint presentation prepared by WHO’s, Dr Bedirhan Üstün, is viewable here on the “Slideshare” platform.

Dr Bedirhan Üstün is Coordinator, Classifications, Terminology and Standards, Department of Health Statistics and Information, WHO, Geneva.

You won’t need a PowerPoint .pptx format viewer to view this presentation on the Slideshare site, but you will need a .pptx viewer if you want to download and view the file. (A free .pptx viewer can be downloaded for free from the Microsoft site.)

In order to download the file, you will first need to register with Slideshare or use a Facebook membership as Sign in. If you do agree to download through a Facebook membership, please read and digest the T & C before you agree to Slideshare accessing your Facebook profile data.

View the presentation here:

http://www.slideshare.net/ustunb/tokyo-2012-ustun-show

Tokyo 2012 ustun (show) by Bedirhan Ustun on Feb 10, 2012

for which it states:

“WHO is revising the ICD to be completed by 2015. It is going to enter into a Beta phase by 2012 May during which all stakeholders could see and comment on the ICD as well as propose changes, test in practice.”

Slide #7 states:

• 2011  : Alpha version (ICD 11 alpha draft)

– + 1 YR  : Commentaries and consultations

• 2012  : Beta version & Field Trials Version

– + 2 YR Field Trials

• 2014   : Final version for public viewing

– 2015  : WHA Approval

• 2015+  implementation

Slides #11 and #12, set out the thirteen parameters of the ICD-11 “Content Model”.

 

The “Content Model”

ICD Revision says that the most important difference between ICD-10 and ICD-11 will be the Content Model.

Content in ICD-11 will be populated in accordance with the ICD-11 Content Model Reference Guide. There is the potential for considerably more content to be included for diseases, disorders and syndromes in ICD-11 than appears in ICD-10, across all chapters:

“Population of the Content Model and the subsequent review process will serve as the foundation for the creation of the ICD-11. The Content Model identifies the basic characteristics needed to define any ICD category through use of multiple parameters (e.g. Body Systems, Body Parts, Signs and Symptoms, Diagnostic Findings, Causal Agents, Mechanisms, Temporal Patterns, Severity, Functional Impact, Treatment interventions, Diagnostic Rules).”

This is the most recent available version of the Content Model Reference Guide January 2011

This iCAT Glossary page gives an overview of the 13 Content Model parameters.

See also Post #62: ICD-11 Content Model Reference Guide: version for December 2010

 

New Beta drafting browser

In May 2011, a publicly viewable ICD-11 Alpha Browser platform was launched.

In July 2011, this platform was opened up to professionals and other interested stakeholders who can register via the site for fuller access and for reading and submitting comments. See the ICD-11 Alpha Browser User Guide for information on how the Browser functions and how to register for increased access. (This is the Alpha/Beta “hybrid” referred to in the WHO-FIC Council conference call report, February 16, 2011: Page 6: PDF for Report)

ICD-11 Revision and Topic Advisory Groups are continuing to use a separate platform for drafting purposes.

Stakeholder participation at the Beta stage

In preparation for the Beta drafting stage, another publicly viewable platform is being developed. According to ICD Revision presentations, this platform will invite and support a higher level of professional and public interaction with the drafting process, with various levels of input and editing authority for interested stakeholders who register for participation. According to editing status, registered stakeholders would be permitted to:

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

See presentation slides in Dx Revision Watch Posts #70 and #71:

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

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and PowerPoint slide presentations

 

Slides #15 and #16 of Dr Üstün’s presentation show the methods via which interested stakeholders will be able to register for interaction with the platform.

I will update when more information becomes available on the launch of the Beta platform.

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.

CFSAC November 8-9, 2011 meeting: Minutes and Recommendations to HHS posted

CFSAC November 8-9, 2011 meeting: Minutes and Recommendations to HHS posted

Shortlink Post #129: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Fn

The fall meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) took place on November 8-9, 2011.

Minutes and Committee’s Recommendations to HHS have now been posted on the CFSAC website.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) 

The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services via the Assistant Secretary for Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on issues related to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). These include:

• factors affecting access and care for persons with CFS;
• the science and definition of CFS; and
• broader public health, clinical, research and educational issues related to CFS.

Administrative and management support for CFSAC activities is provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). However, staffing will continue to be provided primarily from the Office on Women’s Health, which is part of OASH.

Dr. Nancy C. Lee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health – Women’s Health, is the Designated Federal Officer for CFSAC.

The Meetings page is here

               Minutes Day One CFSAC Fall 2011 meeting

               Minutes Day Two CFSAC Fall 2011 meeting

Presentations, Public Testimony and links for Videos for Day One and Day Two

 

The Agenda item with the most relevance for this site was the issue of the current proposals for chapter placement and coding for Chronic fatigue syndrome in the forthcoming US specific ICD-10-CM, the proposals presented for consideration at the September meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee on behalf of the Coalition for ME/CFS, and an alternative proposal presented by NCHS.

See this Dx Revision Watch post (Post #118, December 27, 2011) for a report on the Fall 2012 Meeting presentation by Donna Pickett (NCHS) and discussions of proposals for ICD-10-CM:

CFSAC November 2011 meeting: videos, presentations and Day One Agenda item:

International Classification of Diseases – Clinical Modification (ICD-CM): Presentation by Donna Pickett, RHIA, MPH, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

 

Recommendations out of the Fall 2011 CFSAC Meeting

CFSAC Recommendations – November 8-9, 2011

The specific recommendations articulated by the Committee are:

1. This recommendation addresses the process by which CFSAC transmits recommendations to the Secretary and the Secretary communicates back to CFSAC whether or not a recommendation was acted upon. CFSAC recommends that this process be transparent and clearly articulated to include regular feedback on the status of the committee’s  recommendations. This communication could originate directly from the Office of the Secretary or be transmitted via the relevant agency or agencies.

2. CFSAC recommends to the Secretary that the NIH or other appropriate agency issue a Request for Applications (RFA) for clinical trials research on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

3. CFSAC would like to encourage and support the creation of the DHHS Interagency Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ask this group to work together to pool resources that would put into place the “Centers of Excellence” concept that has been recommended repeatedly by this advisory committee. Specifically, CFSAC encourages utilizing HHS agency programs and demonstration projects, available through the various agencies, to develop and coordinate an effort supporting innovative platforms that facilitate evaluation and treatment, research, and public and provider education. These could take the form of appropriately staffed physical locations, or be virtual networks comprising groups of qualified individuals who interact through a variety of electronic media. Outreach and availability to underserved populations, including people who do not have access to expert care, should be a priority in this effort.

4. This multi‐part recommendation pertains to classification of CFS in ICD classification systems:

a) CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi‐system disease and rejects any proposal to classify CFS as a psychiatric condition in the U.S. disease classification systems.

b) CFSAC rejects the current classification of CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD‐9‐CM under R53.82, chronic fatigue unspecified, chronic fatigue syndrome, not otherwise specified.

c) CFSAC continues to recommend that CFS should be classified in ICD‐10‐CM in Chapter 6 under Diseases of the Nervous System at G93.3 in line with ICD‐10, the World Health Organization, and ICD‐10‐CA, the Canadian Clinical Modification and in accordance with CFSAC’s recommendations of August 2005 and May 2011. CFSAC rejects CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics Option 2 and recommends that CFS remain in the same code and the same subcode as myalgic encephalomyelitis because CFS includes both viral and non‐viral triggers.

d) CFSAC recommends that an “excludes one” [sic *] be added to G93.3 for chronic fatigue, R53.82, and neurasthenia, F48.8. CFSAC recommends that these changes be made in ICD‐10‐CM prior to its rollout in 2013.

This final recommendation was also provided to the National Center for Statistics at the CDC prior to the November 18, 2011 deadline for comments along with the following rationale:

We feel that the interests of patients, the scientific and medical communities, continuity and logic are best served by keeping CFS, (B)ME (Benign Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) and PVFS (Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome) in the same broad grouping category. Current scientific evidence would indicate there are more similarities between the three entities than there are differences. Whether they are synonyms for the same underlying concept, disease entities and sub‐entities, or merely the best coding guess is unclear. In reality, any or all of the above may be correct. While the  relationship between CFS, B(ME) and PVFS is not stated, that they are grouped together in ICD 10 (WHO) would indicate some rationale for a connection. Our understanding is that this association will be maintained in the ICD 11, which may also include further description of the relationship. Exclusions specific to chronic fatigue (a symptom present in many illnesses) and neurasthenia (not a current diagnosis) also seem to be under consideration for ICD 11.

*Ed: Should be “Excludes1″. For definitions for “Excludes1″ and “Excludes2″ see Post #118

               November 2011 Recommendations Letter to the Secretary (PDF 31 KB)

               November 2011 CFSAC Recommendations Chart (PDF 138 KB)

The Minute for Ms Pickett’s presentation “International Classification of Diseases—Clinical Modification (ICD‐CM) Donna Pickett, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)” and Committee discussions in response to that presentation can be found on Pages 4-10 of the PDF for Minutes Day One (November 8, 2011).

Video of presentation in Post #118. Ms Pickett’s presentation slides here in PDF format.

The Minute for the proposal and unanimous approval of a revised and expanded Recommendation to HHS on the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM can be found on Pages 43-44 of the PDF for Minutes Day Two (November 9, 2011). Video in Post #118.

As reported in Post #118, following the September 14 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee, NCHS had invited comments from stakeholders on the proposals in Option 1 (presented by the Coalition for ME/CFS) and Option 2 (alternative proposals by NCHS).

The closing date for comments was November 18, 2011.

A decision was expected before the end of December but since any decision that might have been reached on these proposals has yet to be announced, I have raised some queries with Ms Pickett around the decision making process (see Post #118). I will update when a response has been received from Ms Pickett’s office or a public announcement made.

 

Related post

CFSAC November 2011 meeting: videos, presentations and Day One Agenda item: 

International Classification of Diseases – Clinical Modification (ICD-CM): Presentation by Donna Pickett, RHIA, MPH, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), November 27, 2011