SNOMED) it is freely accessible.
Perhaps OSHCA can make a statement making ICD-10 the 'least common denominator' together with the
caveats and recommendations as cited by Heitzso?
--- Heitzso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do *strongly* recommend researching human engineering studies
> re determine whether a fine granularity such as is provided by ICD-10,
> which may be very accurate from a technical point of view, does, in
> practice, provide more accuracy than a lower granularity encoding.
> If such a study does not exist then some psychiatrists should be
> consulted re the ability of humans when, under stress, to accurately
> assign diseases to one of 10,000 buckets.
>
> I do know that the CDC has to scrub all incoming data to get rid of
> the obvious data encoding errors such as women with testicular diseases
> and men with vaginal diseases. That scrubbing catches only the
> obvious encoding problems.
>
> Second, to at least understand the data inference problem imposed by a fine
> granularity standard encoding when mapping from a lower granularity
> to the finer granularity.
>
>
>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "openhealth" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
