We would like to agree on a naming convention for distinguishing N vs E
codes in ICD-9 multiple cause of death
(MCOD) analyses, and which to list first.
From Dr. Baskin at CHS -
We do not have the nature-of-injury codes in our version of the ICD-9 MC.
But we have these in the ICD-10 MC. In the ICD-10, these codes are codes
with letters S and T (chapter XIX of the ICD-10). The nature-of-injury
codes are very important for the multiple cause-of-death analysis,
especially for such requests like brain (head) or spinal cord injury
deaths or for another hot topic - heroin /opioids-related deaths or other
specific drug poisoning mortality (ICD-10 codes T36 - T50). We have
these requests almost every week and Vitalnet is very helpful to process
these requests quickly (especially legislative and media requests).
The ICD-9 coding system is different and has the same numerical
expression for the external (800-999) and for the nature-of-injury
codes (800-999). In ICD-9 books, external cause-of-injury codes
(E-codes) are designated with the capital letter "E" as "E800-E999".
The nature-of-injury codes are included in a Chapter XVII and are
designated by codes 800-999.9.
In Texas death database, the ICD-9 external codes do not have the letter E
(unfortunately). To distinguish the external and nature-of-injury codes,
there is the special Nature-Of-Injury value that accompanies the ICD-9
codes, where 1 = nature-of-injury code (from the Chapter XVII) and 0 =
all other codes (natural or external).
DF_RECORD field consists of 5 characters for
20 possible codes, where characters 1-4 are the ICD cause code. If the
ICD code has only 3 digits, the 4th character is blank. Character 5 is
the Nature-of-Injury value (index). This value is not the part of an
ICD code; it is just a Flag to indicate the nature-of-injury codes and
designate them from other (natural or external) codes.
In my understanding, it would
be helpful to have the nature-of-injury codes in the ICD-9 MC as well,
the problem would by how to code them though. Also, if you will exclude
the Nature-Of-Injury value, how your programming will recognize the
actual External codes (800-999.9) from the nature-of-injury codes
(800-999.9)? Or you will just exclude the nature-of-injury codes from
data before running the Vitalnet programming?
ICD-9 N codes vs E codes -
In the ICD-9 death system,
"E codes" (external cause) and "N codes" (nature of injury) share the same 800-999 numbering.
N800 is "Fracture Of Vault Of Skull",
E800 is "Railway Accident: ...".
E codes may be used as the underlying cause of death,
N codes may not.
N codes not included in Vitalnet ICD-9 MCOD -
N codes (N800-N999) have never been included in Vitalnet ICD-9 MCOD analyses.
Nobody ever raised the issue before.
In contrast, the ICD-10 MCOD data import process includes all ICD-10 codes in the data file.
The S and T codes are always included in the ICD-10 MCOD.
The ICD-9 data file as currently imported -
The ICD-9 MCOD 100-character field has twenty segments (for up to 20 codes).
Each segment is 5 characters long.
Character #5 is the NOI flag, not part of the ICD-9 code.
As of now, if the NOI flag is 1, the code does NOT get imported into the MCOD module.
We want to change that so all the ICD-9 codes are imported into the MCOD module.
Why import N codes into Vitalnet MCOD? -
It makes perfect sense to include all the ICD-9 MCOD codes,
since it would be consistent with how the ICD-10 Vitalnet MCOD works.
The current results, excluding N codes, are not really correct.
Naming convention choices -
We need to agree how to display N vs E codes (800-999 overlap).
Looking through WHO ICD-9 books,
it seems there are a few choices for N vs E codes for the MCOD system:
#1 - N vs E = 805 vs E805
#2 - N vs E = N805 vs E805
#3 - N vs E = N805 vs 805
All three options clearly distinguish N vs E,
because Vitalnet results always include the full ICD description.
The final choice (#3) seems perhaps best, as
it is consistent with the UC system (805 in UC is same as 805 in MCOD),
I think whatever we decide this consistency is important.
Which comes first, N or E? -
The other question would be "which comes first?" (in selection menus and output listings) (N or E?).
The reference books present the N codes first,
then the E codes, so that seems the best (arbitrary) choice.
Change convention for E codes in UC version? -
If desired, we could switch calling the E codes in the UC module
from UC "805" to "E805" version.
It is feasible.
If we did switch, we should then (for consistency) use E805 in the MCOD version.
The disadvantage might be inconsistency with previous reports.
Allowing for the possibility of using UC E805 format, here are possible combinations:
UC - 1-799 800-999
MC - 1-799 800-999 N800-N999
UC - 1-799 E800-E999
MC - 1-799 E800-E999 N800-N999
UC - 1-799 E800-E999
MC - 1-799 E800-E999 800-999
Feasibility / Timeline -
Without going into details, the programming seems feasible.
The issue of recognizing N codes from E codes is already taken care of.
The programming might take a few weeks to a few months, mostly depending on my schedule.
I'm interested to do it. It is a needed improvement.
N codes NOT in UC analyses -
I am not suggesting to include N codes in Vitalnet ICD-9 UC analyses.
The UC analyses will continue to use the E-codes for 800-999.
Similarly, the ICD-10 UC analyses exclude the S and T codes.
We need to pick a naming convention for distinguishing N vs E
codes in ICD-9 MCOD analyses, and which to list first (N or E).
I am suggesting to use N800 to indicate an MCOD N code,
to use 800 to indicate an MCOD E code, and to list N codes first.
However, I am open to other suggestions, and would like to get this right.