Intimate partner violence and clinical coding: issues with the use of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) in England
Objectives
To investigate the availability of intimate partner violence-related population health information in England and the possibility of identifying intimate partner violence-exposed population sample frames from administrative health data systems in England employing the International Classification of Disease.
Methods
Research design was an exploratory mixed method approach that involved trend analysis of numbers of applications of International Classification of Disease intimate partner violence classifications for admissions to NHS hospitals in England over a five-year period and semi-structured focus group interviews with clinical coders at an NHS Hospital.
Results
Use of International Classification of Disease intimate partner violence classifications was generally low across NHS Trusts in England. There was notable variation in the numbers of applications across NHS providers which demographic differences or rates of violence perpetration would not account for. The interview findings revealed conceptual ambiguity regarding intimate partner violence classifications which presented challenges for clinical coding and raised questions about the reliability and validity of International Classification of Disease’s intimate partner violence classifications.
Conclusion
It would not be possible to extract robust data about populations exposed to intimate partner violence for the purposes of audit, governance or research from health information systems using current International Classification of Disease-10 classifications. Development of these International Classification of Disease codes is essential for violence and abuse to be captured more accurately in health information systems and afforded greater prioritization and funding proportionate to the health burden and service demands that intimate partner violence is responsible for.
Top-30
Journals
|
1
2
|
|
|
Social Sciences
2 publications, 9.52%
|
|
|
Journal of Neurotrauma
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Annals of Surgery
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
American Journal of Public Health
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Journal of Psychosexual Health
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Public Health Reports
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Journal of primary care & community health
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
BMJ Open
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Journal of General Internal Medicine
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Sexual Medicine Reviews
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Annals of Epidemiology
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
International Journal of Legal Medicine
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Health Policy
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Schizophrenia Research
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Violence Against Women
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
1
2
|
Publishers
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
|
|
|
SAGE
6 publications, 28.57%
|
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
3 publications, 14.29%
|
|
|
Elsevier
3 publications, 14.29%
|
|
|
MDPI
2 publications, 9.52%
|
|
|
Springer Nature
2 publications, 9.52%
|
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
American Public Health Association
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
BMJ
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
Oxford University Press
1 publication, 4.76%
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.