Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Khurram, S.A.; Warner, C.; Henry, A.M.; Kumar, A.; Mohammed-Ali, R.I. (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Clinical coding has important financial implications, and discrepancies in the assigned codes can directly affect the funding of a department and hospital. Over the last few years, numerous oversights have been noticed in the coding of oral and maxillofacial (OMF) procedures. To establish the accuracy and completeness of coding, we retrospectively analysed the records of patients during two time periods: March to May 2009 (324 patients), and January to March 2014 (200 patients). Two investigators independently collected and analysed the data to ensure accuracy and remove bias. A large proportion of operations were not assigned all the relevant codes, and only 32% - 33% were correct in both cycles. To our knowledge, this is the first reported audit of clinical coding in OMFS, and it highlights serious shortcomings that have substantial financial implications. Better input by the surgical team and improved communication between the surgical and coding departments will improve accuracy.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Secretary of State for Health. Delivering the NHS Plan: next steps on investment, next steps on reform. April 2002.
    • 2. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Classification of Surgical Operations, 4th Revision. London: HMSO; 1990.
    • 3. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Geneva: WHO; 1992.
    • 4. Colville RJI, Laing JHE, Murison MSC. Coding plastic surgery operations: an audit of performance using OPCS-4. Br J Plast Surg 2000;53:420 422.
    • 5. James NK, Reid CD. Plastic surgery audit codes: are the results reproducible? Br J Plast Surg 1991; 44: 62 4.
    • 6. Ballaro A, Oliver S, Emberton M. Do we do what they say we do? BJU Int 2000;85: 389- 391.
    • 7. Mirza S, Arshad F, Watson A. Clinical coding in ear, nose and throat (ENT) operations. BJHCM 2011;17(12):541 544.
    • 8. Mitra I, Malik T, Homer JJ et al. Audit of clinical coding of major head and neck operations. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2009;91(3):245-248.
    • 9. Moar, K. Impact of coding errors on departmental income: an audit of coding of microvascular free tissue transfer cases using OPCS-4 in UK. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50(1):85.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article