Proposals for the classification of Chronic pain in ICD-11: Part 2

Post #326 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-48Y

Click here for Part 1

Part 2: Fibromyalgia

On May 5, 2015, the ICD-11 Beta draft category, Fibromyalgia, was removed from the Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue chapter and relocated under Symptoms, signs, clinical forms, and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified (currently numbered Chapter 21 in the Beta draft).*

*Source: Fibromyalgia Change History, 05 May 2015

For ICD-11, Fibromyalgia is proposed to be listed under the Symptoms, signs chapter, under a proposed new primary parent category: Multi-site primary chronic pains syndromes, under parent class, Primary chronic pain.

No rationale for a proposed change of chapter location and parent class was recorded in the Change History at the time of the edit and to the best of my knowledge, no rationale has been subsequently posted on the Beta draft or published elsewhere.

See Part 1 and the June 2015 paper A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Rolf-Detlef Treede, Winfried Rief et al for the IASP working group’s proposals for locating irritable bowel syndrome; chronic nonspecific back pain; chronic pelvic pain; chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and potentially some other conditions where chronic pain is a feature, under a proposed new disorder category, Primary chronic pain.

It is unclear from these proposals, whether Fibromyalgia is intended to be secondary parented (cross-referenced) to the Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue chapter, or to Diseases of the nervous system, or whether some disorders categorized under Primary chronic pain disorder would have no secondary parent chapter association beyond the Symptoms, signs chapter.

 

ICD-11 Beta Foundation Component

In the ICD-11 Foundation Component (where all ICD-11 entities are listed), Fibromyalgia is listed under Chronic pain > Primary chronic pain > Multi-site primary chronic pains syndromes, and assigned a Definition and other Content Model descriptors.

View the Beta draft Foundation Component here: Fibromyalgia

The current Beta draft Definitions for Fibromyalgia do not appear to have been revised from how the text had stood prior to chapter relocation in May 2015 and may not, in any case, reflect current consensus for case definition and diagnostic criteria. (The likely source for the text for the Definition and Long Definition is this Orphanet page, apparently last updated May 2007 but includes links to more recent references).

 

ICD-11 Beta draft (Accessed August 20, 2015):

Fibromyalgia

Fibro2208152


But in the Joint Linearization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (JMMLS), Fibromyalgia is not proposed to be listed with a discrete code but rolled up as an Inclusion term under MAOE.11 Multi-site primary chronic pains syndromes.

View the Beta draft JLMMS linearization here: Fibromyalgia

 

FibroJMMLS1

 

This screenshot displays the hover text for Inclusion term, Fibromyalgia, in the JMMLS linearization:

Fibro as inlcusion term3

ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version: Joint Linearization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Accessed August 20, 2015.

 

I am not a stakeholder or advocate for Fibromyalgia or for any of the several terms proposed to be categorized under the Primary chronic pain/Chronic primary pain parent term.

Consideration of the implications for aggregating Fibromyalgia, chronic widespread pain, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic nonspecific back pain, chronic pelvic pain and some other conditions where chronic pain is a predominate feature, under a new term in the Symptoms, signs chapter, on data collection, research, commissioning of services, access to treatments, reimbursement etc. is beyond the scope of this report.

But I urge stakeholder patient organizations, the clinicians who advise them, allied health professionals, occupational therapists and disability lawyers to scrutinize the IASP Task Force paper, the Beta draft rationale and proposals documents, proposed definitions and other descriptive content and to register with the Beta draft to submit comments and make formal suggestions for improvements via the Proposal Mechanism, (supported with references, where possible).

There is a considerable amount of psychosomatics in the Detailed Proposals document for Primary chronic pain. There is disorder description and criteria overlap with ICD-11’s proposed Bodily distress disorder; with DSM-5 Somatic symptom disorder “Predominate pain” specifier; with Somatoform pain disorder and the German ICD-10-GM: F45.41: Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors – a classification which Prof Winfried Rief was instrumental in getting inserted in ICD-10-GM, in 2009.

Prof Winfried Rief slide presentation:

Back in 2012, Chronic pain Task Force co-chair, Prof Winfried Rief, had presented tentative ideas for potential frameworks for a new ICD-11 chapter or section for pain conditions:

2012 SIP Symposium Workshop presentation: IASP and the Classification of Pain in ICD-11

Note in Slides #12-15, a number of the so-called, functional somatic syndromes, and in Slide #15, “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Neurasthenia” [sic], had been floated (in 2012) as potential partners in any new chapter or section for chronic pain.

 

Key documents for patient organizations and advocates

A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11 Treede R, Rief W, et al, June 2015

Detailed Rationale/proposals/criteria documents:

Chronic pain 2015-May-26 Antonia Barke

Chronic primary pain 2015-June-29 Antonia Barke

Chronic visceral pain 2015-May-26 Antonia Barke

Chronic musculoskeletal pain 2015-May-26 Antonia Barke

Current ICD-11 Beta draft location Foundation Component listing for Irritable bowel syndrome

ICD-11 Beta draft Foundation Component listing for Fibromyalgia

ICD-11 Beta draft JLMMS listing for Fibromyalgia [rolled up as Inclusion in Multi-site primary chronic pains syndromes]

 

Further reading

Medscape article: Chronic Pain Syndrome, Manish K Singh, MD; Chief Editor: Stephen Kishner, MD, MHA, updated July 15 2015

 


Caveats: The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is not a static document: it is a work in progress, subject to daily edits and revisions, to field test evaluation and to approval by ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive ICD-11 field testing. Chapter numbering, codes and sorting labels currently assigned to ICD categories may change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies continue to be reorganized. The public version of the Beta draft is incomplete: not all Content Model parameters display or have been populated; definitions may be absent, awaiting revision or subject to further revision. The draft may contain errors and category omissions.
For some categories, detailed proposals/rationales/criteria are being posted by Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs) and can be viewed via the Proposals Mechanism, for which registration is required. Additional proposals/suggestions for modifications submitted by work groups or stakeholders which are awaiting review and decisions may also be found via the Proposals Mechanism.

Proposals for the classification of Chronic pain in ICD-11: Part 1

Post #325 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-488

Part 1

In 2013, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) launched a working group tasked with developing proposals for the classification of chronic pain within ICD-11, for application in primary care, low-resource environments, and clinical settings for specialized pain management.

The Classification of Chronic Pain Task Force is working under the auspices of WHO/ICD Revision. The group is co-chaired by IASP President, Prof. Dr. med. Rolf-Detlef Treede, and Winfried Rief PhD, Professor of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Marburg.

The working group held its first meeting in March 2013. At that point, the potential for creating a new chapter for pain in ICD-11 was reportedly under consideration (Organizing Principles, Classifying pain for healthcare, Carol Cruzan Morton, April 2013).

But the concept of a dedicated pain chapter for ICD-11 appears to have been set aside in preference to expanding the existing Chronic pain classification within the Symptoms, signs, clinical forms, and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified chapter (currently numbered Chapter 21 in the Beta draft).

Under this new Chronic pain disorder section, “…diagnoses in which pain is either the sole or a leading complaint of the patient will be listed.”

Additionally, chronic pain conditions considered neglected in previous ICD versions, for example, chronic cancer pain, chronic neuropathic pain and chronic visceral pain, will be represented under Chronic pain with their own codes.

A simplified version of the proposed framework for use by primary care practitioners was expected to undergo field testing in several countries. A more detailed specialty ICD-11 linearization for use by pain specialists is also envisaged.

 

What are the most recent proposals from the IASP Chronic Pain Task Force?

In March 2015, the IASP working group published a paper setting out proposals and rationales for the structure of a new Chronic pain section and the disorders classified within it. Initially, the paper was behind a paywall, but was published under Open Access in June. You can read the paper in html and PDF format here:

A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Rolf-Detlef Treede, Winfried Rief et al
Pain. 2015 Jun; 156(6): 1003-7. Published online 2015 Mar 14. PMCID: PMC4450869

Under the proposed framework, chronic pain will be defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than three months.

There are optional specifiers for each diagnosis to record evidence of psychosocial factors and pain severity. Pain severity can be graded on the basis of pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment.

“Detailed Explanation of the Proposal” texts for Chronic pain and its 7 child categories have been uploaded to the ICD-11 Beta draft Proposals Mechanism on behalf of the working group.

These are important texts setting out detailed proposals, rationales and criteria and are open for review, comment and suggestions for changes, for which registration with the Beta draft is required. There are links for these texts below but for ease of reference, I am including selected of these texts in .doc format.

Proposed disorder categories

The new ICD section for Chronic pain is proposed to comprise the most common clinically relevant disorders. These are proposed to be divided into 7 groups (Fig. 1, Treede et al, 2015).

 

Chapter 21: Symptoms, signs, clinical forms, and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified 

General symptoms, findings and clinical forms

General symptoms

(…)

Pain

Chronic pain [Detailed Proposals] [.doc document]

2.1. Chronic primary pain [Detailed Proposals] [.doc document]

Subclass: Mono-site primary chronic pains syndromes [Detailed proposals not available]

Subclass: Multi-site primary chronic pains syndromes [Detailed proposals not available]

  Fibromyalgia [Detailed proposals not available]

2.2. Chronic cancer pain [Detailed Proposals]

2.3. Chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain [Detailed Proposals]

2.4. Chronic neuropathic pain [Detailed Proposals]

2.5. Chronic headache and orofacial pain [Detailed Proposals]

2.6. Chronic visceral pain [Detailed Proposals] [.doc document]

2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain [Detailed Proposals] [.doc document]

 

According to its Detailed Proposals text, Chronic primary pain is proposed to be primary parented under Chronic pain and secondary parented to Diseases of the nervous system.

Other chronic pain disorders are proposed to be primary parented under Chronic pain and secondary parented to Neoplasms, Diseases of the nervous system, Diseases of the respiratory system, Diseases of the digestive system, Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue or Diseases of the genitourinary system, according to body system.

The “Appendix Structure of the chapter on chronic pain” (page 4 of the Treede et al paper) sets out a complex hierarchy of subclasses.

It’s not evident whether all or selected of these additional subclasses are intended to be added under the disorder categories currently displaying in the Beta draft, or whether additional subclasses would be reserved for use in a specialist linearization for chronic pain.

The Treede et al paper describes Chronic primary pain as:

2.1. Chronic primary pain
Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective.

and (under 2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain):

…Well-described apparent musculoskeletal conditions for which the causes are incompletely understood, such as nonspecific back pain or chronic widespread pain, will be included in the section on chronic primary pain.

 

Under two new terms: Mono-site primary chronic pains syndromes and Multi-site primary chronic pains syndromes the IASP working group proposes to locate irritable bowel syndrome; chronic nonspecific back pain; chronic pelvic pain; chronic widespread pain; fibromyalgia, and potentially some other conditions where chronic pain is a feature.

This “new phenomenological definition” appears to be an umbrella diagnosis for a number of the so-called, “functional somatic syndromes.”

There is a considerable amount of psychosomatics in the Detailed Proposals document for Primary chronic pain.

It is unclear whether the intention is to add discrete categories for irritable bowel syndrome; chronic nonspecific back pain; chronic widespread pain, and other diagnoses proposed to be aggregated under the Chronic primary pain term. But at the time of compiling this report, Fibromyalgia is the only term to have been inserted.

In the ICD-11 Beta draft, Irritable bowel syndrome remains at its current location in Diseases of the digestive system chapter, under Irritable bowel syndrome and certain specified functional bowel disorders.

It is therefore unclear whether ICD-11 Revision Steering Group and the IASP working group have reached consensus over the proposed relocation of Irritable bowel syndrome to the Symptoms, signs chapter, under a new Chronic primary pain parent. I have requested clarification of current intentions via the Proposal Mechanism comments facility.

 

Proposed new ICD-11 categories

These are the disorder categories as currently entered into the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform under parent class: Pain > Chronic pain for the Foundation Component:

Chapter: Symptoms, signs, clinical forms, and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified

Chronic pain 2 20.08.15

ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version: Foundation Component. Accessed August 20, 2015.

A note about discrepancies in terminology: The term, Primary chronic pain, as entered into the Beta draft, is proposed to be amended to Chronic primary pain, in line with the classification structure set out in Table: Appendix Structure of the chapter on chronic pain on page 4 of the Treede et al paper.

The Beta draft’s Mono-site primary chronic pains syndromes and Multi-site primary chronic pains syndromes are termed Localized chronic primary pain (including nonspecific back pain, chronic pelvic pain) and Widespread chronic primary pain (including fibromyalgia syndrome) in the Treede et al paper. (I have enquired whether the Mono- and Multi-site primary chronic pains syndromes terms are to be amended to Mono- and Multi-site chronic primary pain syndromes.)

If you are a stakeholder in any of the terms proposed to be classified under this new Symptoms, signs chapter section, please read the IASP Task Force paper and the Detailed Proposals documents and bring these proposals to the attention of your patient organizations.

 

The G93.3 legacy terms: Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis; Chronic fatigue syndrome

I have no documentary evidence of intention to locate any of the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms under this proposed Symptoms, signs chapter Chronic pain > Chronic primary pain section.

WHO’s, Dr Robert Jakob, told me in June that he expects TAG Neurology to release proposals and rationales for the classification of the G93.3 legacy terms in September or December, latest. See summary of discussions with WHO personnel, June 19, 2015 http://wp.me/pKrrB-46A

Click here for Part 2 Fibromyalgia

 


Caveats: The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is not a static document: it is a work in progress, subject to daily edits and revisions, to field test evaluation and to approval by ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive ICD-11 field testing. Chapter numbering, codes and sorting labels currently assigned to ICD categories may change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies continue to be reorganized. The public version of the Beta draft is incomplete: not all Content Model parameters display or have been populated; definitions may be absent, awaiting revision or subject to further revision. The draft may contain errors and category omissions.
For some categories, detailed proposals/rationales/criteria are being posted by Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs) and can be viewed via the Proposals Mechanism, for which registration is required. Additional proposals/suggestions for modifications submitted by work groups or stakeholders which are awaiting review and decisions may also be found via the Proposals Mechanism.
 

Update to Letter to key Revision personnel re Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 terms from the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform

Post #324 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-46A

This report is an update to Post #322:

Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 terms from the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Letter to key Revision personnel

Eight years into the revision process and stakeholders still don’t know how ICD Revision proposes to classify the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11.

In ICD-10, the (G93.3) Title term is Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is the Inclusion term under G93.3; Chronic fatigue syndrome is included in the Index only, and indexed to the G93.3 code [1].

By 2012, the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft had the three terms listed as in the screenshot, below – still under the Diseases of the nervous system chapter, but with a change of relationship between the three terms.

At that point, Chronic fatigue syndrome was being proposed as a new ICD Title term; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis* was specified as the Inclusion term (indicated in the draft by hover text over the asterisk which is not displaying in this screenshot).

Postviral fatigue syndrome, previously designated as Title code in ICD-10, was now located under Synonyms, in a list of alternative and historical terms imported from other terminology systems and health informatics sources, including two terms specific to Chapter 18: Symptoms, signs etc. of the U.S. ICD-10-CM clinical modification [4].

Beta12

Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version, July 25, 2012.

 

In early 2013, ICD Revision removed the entry for Chronic fatigue syndrome and its associated terms from the public version of the Beta draft; from that point on, none of the terms were accessible in any Linearization.

(In the version of the Beta that the public sees, there are no holding pens viewable for categories “Needing a decision to be made” and no tab for “Category Notes and Decisions” which might indicate the rationale for the temporary or permanent absence of a category from the draft.)

Although a Change History function was incorporated into the public Beta in March, no Change History is available for these terms. The Topic Advisory Group (TAG) for Neurology has published no progress reports on emerging proposals for scrutiny and discussion.

So for over 2 years, now, stakeholders have been unable to monitor evolving proposals for the classification of these G93.3 legacy entities within ICD-11. The continued absence of these terms hinders submission of comments and suggestions on proposed chapter location(s), parent classes, hierarchies, inclusions, exclusions, definitions or other Content Model descriptive text.

 

Request for release of information on current status of proposals

On June 8, I sent a letter to Bedirhan Üstün (WHO/ICD Revision Coordinator), Cc’d to key ICD Revision personnel and the recently assembled ICD Revision Project Management Team, requesting an update on the status of proposals for these terms and their restoration to the draft [5]. Read letter here

On Friday, June 19, Anneke Schmider (WHO Technical Officer, ICD Revision Project Manager) facilitated a conference call with myself and Dr Robert Jakob (WHO ICD classifications, ICD Revision Steering Group) in which Dr Jakob responded to my letter, having obtained a progress report from TAG Neurology.

NB: It was not the purpose of this discussion to advance my own views on how these terms should be represented within ICD-11 but to elicit clarifications on the current status of proposals.

 

Summary of main points from our discussion:

TAG Neurology retains responsibility for these three terms.

None of the sub-working groups that sit under TAG Neurology has specific responsibility for these terms.

TAG Neurology is still reviewing the literature and has yet to reach consensus about where to classify these terms within ICD-11.

Dr Jakob says he can be “crystal clear” that there is no proposal to classify the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms under the Mental and behavioural disorders chapter.

JakobJune155

The ICD-11 principle of multiple parenting was discussed in general terms: multiple parenting allows the same disease to be expressed in two (or more) places in the ICD-11 linearizations. A disease or disorder category will be located under a primary parent class within one chapter but may also be searchable under a secondary (or tertiary) parent within another chapter, whilst retaining the code assigned in the primary location. (See ICD-11 Multiple parenting Slides 42-48)

Because TAG Neurology is still working towards consensus, Dr Jakob would not be drawn on the following:

whether relocating one or more of these terms from the Diseases of the nervous system to an alternative chapter(s) was under consideration;

whether retaining one or more of these terms within the Diseases of the nervous system chapter but secondary parenting under an alternative chapter(s) was under consideration;

what existing parent classes were being considered for locating these terms under;

whether the creation of any new parent classes was being considered for these terms;

whether any changes in the relationship between the three terms, as they had stood in the Beta draft in early 2013, have already been agreed or remain under consideration (ie any changes to which of the terms are identified as ICD Title terms, which are specified as Inclusion terms and which are listed as Synonyms).

which of the terms are proposed to be assigned a Definition and other Content Model descriptive text and where definition(s) would be sourced from.

It remains unclarified, therefore, whether ICD-11 intends to define CFS discretely from BME. Also unclarified: whether exclusions for these terms are proposed to be inserted under categories such as Bodily distress disorder; Fatigue [previously Malaise and fatigue in ICD-10]; and a proposed new Diseases of the nervous system parent term, Functional clinical forms of the nervous system (a proposal that TAG Mental Health opposes).

I have already submitted requests via the Proposal Mechanism that PVFS, BME and CFS are inserted under Exclusions to Bodily distress disorder, and Fatigue.

 

With regard to a date by which we might anticipate proposals being released:

The Beta draft was frozen on May 31, 2015. The Beta Comment facility is open and stakeholders can register to comment on the draft or submit formal proposals for changes and enhancements to proposals via the Proposals Mechanism. Another frozen release is expected in August. (But while TAG Neurology’s proposals remain absent from the Beta and unpublished elsewhere, stakeholders are in no position to comment on the TAG proposals or submit suggestions for modifications to TAG proposals.)

Dr Jakob says that in September, ICD Revision plans to post various materials relating to the development process on the WHO/ICD website for public scrutiny, this to possibly include rationales, and documents relating to the abridged Primary Care version of ICD-11.

If TAG Neurology’s proposals for the G93.3 legacy terms are not ready for September release, then Dr Jakob projected their release towards the end of December.

The target date for presentation of ICD-11 for World Health Assembly (WHA) approval is currently proposed for May 2018. There would be a period for public review and comment prior to presentation for adoption.

I will update on the status of proposals for these terms as soon as further information becomes available.

It is regrettable that stakeholders are little better informed than they were two years ago.

 

Bodily stress syndrome (S3DWG); Bodily stress syndrome (PCCG)

My longstanding concerns regarding the proposals of the WHO Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG) for the revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders and the alternative proposals of the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) were beyond the scope of my letter to Dr Üstün and my discussions with Dr Jakob in response to that letter.

However, I advised Dr Jakob that my concerns around proposals for the S3DWG’s “Bodily distress disorder” and the Primary Care Consultation Group’s “Bodily stress syndrome” have been discussed with ICD Revision’s, Dr Geoffrey Reed, and in formal submissions via the Proposals Mechanism and Beta Comment facility for the consideration of TAG Mental Health [6][7].

 

References and related posts

1 ICD-10 Version: 2015 Chapter VI Diseases of the nervous system, G93.3

2 ICD-11 Beta drafting platform (Public version)

Frozen release at May 31, 2015

3 ICD-11 Beta Proposal Mechanism (Registration required for access)

4 Briefing paper on ICD-11 and PVFS, ME and CFS: Part 2, Dx Revision Watch

5 Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 terms from the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Letter to key Revision personnel, Dx Revision Watch

6 Personal correspondence; ICD-11 Beta Proposal Mechanism.

7 Comment submitted to ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health re: Bodily distress disorder, Suzy Chapman

 

Comment submitted to ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health re: Bodily distress disorder

Post #323 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-465

There are two ways in which stakeholders can submit comments on proposals in the ICD-11 Beta draft or make formal suggestions for changes or additions to the draft:

by selecting a disorder or disease term and submitting a comment on the proposed ICD-11 Title term, on the proposed Definition text (if a Definition has already been populated), or commenting on the lists of Synonyms, Inclusions, Exclusions or on any other Content Model descriptors. Users may also leave replies to comments submitted by other users or invite others to participate in threads;

by selecting a disorder or disease term and suggesting changes to the classification or enhancement of existing content by proposing Definition texts, additional Synonyms or Exclusions, additional child entities, changes to existing parent/child hierarchies or deletions of existing entities – ideally supported with rationales and references. Proposals for changes or suggestions for modifications are submitted via the Proposals Mechanism platform. This platform also supports user comments. Once submitted, the progress of a proposal can be tracked.

To register for interaction with the Beta draft see User Guide: Information on registering and signing in

To comment on existing proposals see User Guide: Commenting on the category

To suggest changes or submit new proposals see User Guide: Proposals

At the time of writing, the Beta draft is subject to a frozen release (frozen May 31, 2015) but this does not prevent registered users from continuing to commenting on the ICD-11 Beta draft or from submitting proposals via the Proposals Mechanism.

Comment submitted to TAG Mental Health in May re: Bodily distress disorder

On May 2, 2015, I posted a commentary via the ICD-11 Beta platform Comment facility. As one needs to be registered in order to read/make comments and submit proposals, I have pasted a copy, below.

Once uploaded, Comments and Proposals are screened and forwarded to the appropriate Topic Advisory Group (TAG) Managing Editors for their consideration. In this case, my comment will have been forwarded to the Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health.

Some of the points raised, below, had already been raised by me, either via the Beta platform or directly with ICD Revision personnel. But it may be advantageous to consolidate these points within the one comment for two reasons:

Firstly, the level of global concern around ICD-11 proposals by the WHO ICD-11 Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders for a new disorder construct, currently proposed to be called “Bodily distress disorder (BDD),” and also for the alternative proposals of the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group.

Secondly, the unsoundness of introducing into ICD a new disorder category that proposes to use terminology which is already closely associated with a conceptually divergent disorder construct isn’t being given due attention in journal papers or editorials and has yet to be acknowledged or addressed by the ICD-11 subworking group responsible for this recommendation.

 

Click link for PDF document   Chapman BDD Submission May 2015

Comment, Bodily distress disorder

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268?showcomment=_4_id_3_who_3_int_1_icd_1_entity_1_767044268 [Log in required]

Suzy Chapman 2015-May-02 – 20:43 UTC

It should be noted that earlier this year, TAG Mental Health added the new DSM-5 disorder term “Somatic symptom disorder” under Synonyms to “Bodily distress disorder (BDD).”

I welcome affirmation that BDD, as defined by ICD-11 Beta, shares common conceptual features with DSM-5’s SSD.

However, as with “Somatic symptom disorder”, the proposed “Bodily distress disorder” diagnosis is unsupported by any substantial body of evidence for its likely validity, safety and acceptability. We [Allen Frances and Suzy Chapman, 2012-13] have called for a higher standard of evidence and risk-benefit analysis for ICD Revision [1][2][3].

BDD’s characterization, as entered into the Beta draft and as described by Gureje and Creed (2012), is far looser than the (rarely used) definitions of Somatization disorder in DSM-IV and in ICD-10 [4].

BDD broadens the diagnosis to include those where a diagnosed general medical condition is causing or contributing to the symptom(s) if the degree of attention is considered excessive in relation to the condition’s nature and progression. Like SSD, the diagnosis does not require symptoms to be “medically unexplained” but instead refers to any persistent and clinically significant somatic complaint(s) with associated psychobehavioural responses: excessive thoughts, feelings and behaviours. There were long-standing concerns for the over-inclusiveness of DSM-IV’s Undifferentiated somatoform disorder.

BDD’s three severity specifiers rely on highly subjective clinical decision making around loose and difficult to measure cognitions; as with SSD, there are considerable concerns that lack of specificity will expose patients to risk of misdiagnosis, missed or delayed diagnosis, misapplication of a mental disorder, iatrogenic disease and stigma.

Whether the term “Bodily distress disorder” (or “Body distress disorder,” as Sudhir Hebbar [a psychiatrist who had left an earlier comment on the Beta draft in respect of the proposed BDD name and disorder construct] has suggested) is used for this proposed replacement for the Somatoform disorder categories, F45.0 – F45.9, plus F48.0 Neurasthenia, both the disorder conceptualization and the terminology remain problematic.

The terms “Bodily distress disorder” and “Bodily distress syndrome” (Fink et al, 2010) are already being used synonymously in the literature.

The terms are used interchangeably in papers by Fink and colleagues from around 2007 onwards [5] and by Creed, Guthrie et al, in 2010 [6]. They are used interchangeably by Professor Creed in symposia presentations.

In a September 2014 editorial by Rief and Isaac [7] the term “Bodily distress disorder” has been employed throughout, whereas the construct that Rief and Isaac are actually discussing is the Fink et al (2010) BDS disorder construct – not the “BDD” construct, as defined in the Beta draft – which the authors do not discuss, at all.

According to the Beta draft Definition and BDD’s three severity characterizations (Mild; Moderate; Severe), the WHO ICD-11 Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (the S3DWG) defines “Bodily distress disorder” as having strong construct congruency and characterization alignment with DSM-5’s “Somatic Symptom Disorder” and poor conceptual alignment with Fink et al’s, already operationalized, “Bodily distress syndrome” [8].

If, in the context of ICD-11 usage, the S3DWG’s proposal for a replacement for the Somatoform disorders remains for a disorder model with greater conceptual concordance with the DSM-5 SSD construct there can be no rationale for proposing to name this disorder “Bodily distress disorder.”

There is significant potential for confusion over disorder conceptualization and for disorder conflation if the S3DWG’s proposed replacement for the Somatoform disorders has greater conceptual alignment with the SSD construct but is assigned a disorder name that sounds very similar to, and is already being used interchangeably with an operationalized, but divergent construct and criteria set.

Additionally, the acronym “BDD” is already in use to indicate Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

If ICD-11 intends to proceed with the BDD construct following field test evaluation, and despite the lack of a body of evidence for validity, safety and acceptability, then an alternative disorder term needs to be assigned.

In a 2010 paper, Creed and co-authors advanced that “Somatic symptom disorder is not a term that is likely to be embraced enthusiastically by doctors or patients; it has an uncertain core concept, dubious wide acceptability across cultures and does not promote multidisciplinary treatment” and they expressed a preference for the term, “bodily distress syndrome/disorder” [6].

I have no evidence that Prof Creed has changed his opinions about SSD since the publication of DSM-5 and perhaps he remains wedded to the “Bodily distress disorder” term (and wedded to the BDS construct) and is reluctant to relinquish the term.

Creed, Henningsen and Fink acknowledge that Fink et al’s (2010) BDS construct is very different to DSM-5’s SSD; that BDS and SSD have very different criteria and that they capture, or potentially capture, different patient populations [9].

Budtz-Lilly, Fink et al (In Press) outline some of the conceptual differences between SSD and BDS:

“The newly introduced DSM-5 diagnosis, somatic symptom disorder (SSD), has replaced most of the DSM-IV somatoform disorder subcategories [10]. The diagnosis requires the presence of one or more bothering somatic symptoms of any aetiology and is not based on exclusion of any medical condition (…) BDS and SSD represent two very conceptually different diagnoses. BDS is based on symptom pattern recognition only, and symptoms are thought to be caused by hyperactivity in the central nervous system, whereas SSD criteria are based on prominent positive psycho-behavioural symptoms or characteristics, but no hypothesis of aetiology. BDS is assessed without asking patients about psychological symptoms.” [10]

In order to fulfill the clinical criteria of BDS, the symptom pattern may not be better explained by another disease. Whereas the SSD diagnosis may be applied to a heterogeneous group of patients: as a “bolt-on” mental health diagnosis for patients with, for example, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic pain conditions, or to patients with so-called specialty-specific functional somatic syndromes, or to patients with “functional symptoms”, if the criteria are otherwise met.

SSD, then, clearly cannot be BDS. And if the S3DWG’s BDD is close in conceptualization and criteria to SSD, then the S3DWG’s BDD cannot be BDS, either. But the terms BDD and BDS are already used interchangeably outside ICD-11.

What is the S3DWG rationale for proposing to use this disorder term when the group is aware that outside the context of ICD-11 Beta proposals, the term is synonymously used with an already operationalized, but divergent disorder construct?

Whatever the group’s justification, the term is clearly inappropriate; it needs urgent scrutiny beyond the S3DWG group and I call on TAG Mental Health and the Revision Steering Group to review the BDD disorder descriptions in the context of the group’s current choice of terminology.

But the waters get even muddier:

Possibly Sudhir Hebbar and other users of the Beta platform are unaware that in addition to the 17 member S3DWG subworking group’s proposals, the 12 member Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) is also charged with advising ICD-11 on the revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders framework and disorder categories.

The 28 mental disorders approved for inclusion in the abridged ICD-11 primary care version will require an equivalent category within the core edition.

The Primary Care Consultation Group [chair, Prof, Sir David Goldberg] has proposed an alternative construct which it proposes to name, “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)”. The PCCG’s “BSS” draws heavily on the Fink et al (2010) “Bodily distress syndrome” disorder construct and criteria [8][11].

(NB: Rief and Isaac [7] question the justification of the BDS construct for inclusion within a mental disorder classification due to the absence of requirement for positive psychobehavioural features. In 2012, the PCCG’s proposed “BSS” had included some psychobehavioural features to meet the criteria, tacked onto an essentially BDS-like model. Whether this modification was intended as a nod towards DSM-5’s SSD or to legitimise inclusion of a BDS-like model/criteria set within a mental disorder classification is not discussed within the group’s 2012 paper. With no recent update on proposals available, I cannot confirm whether the PCCG’s adapted BDS retains these additional psychobehavioural features.)

Budtz-Lilly, Fink et al (In Press) write:

“In the current draft, the ICD-11 primary care work group has included these [BDS] criteria in their suggestion for a definition of bodily (di)stress syndrome with minor adaptations.” [10] (The paper does not specify what these “minor adaptations” are.)

The authors go on to state:

“Furthermore the ICD-11 somatoform disorder psychiatry work group has announced that the term ‘bodily distress disorder’ will be used for the diagnosis.”

Here, one assumes the authors are referring to the S3DWG subworking group. It is disingenuous of the authors to imply that the S3DWG is onside with the PCCG’s proposals, whilst omitting any discussion of the core differences between the two groups’ proposed disorder constructs and criteria.

According to Ivbijaro and Goldberg (2013) the Primary Care Consultation Group’s (adapted “BDS”) construct has been progressed to field tests [12].

In his September 2014 presentation at the XVI World Congress of Psychiatry, in Madrid, Prof Oye Gureje confirmed that the S3DWG’s “Bodily Distress Disorder” is also currently a subject of tests of its utility and reliability in internet- and clinic-based studies.

So both sets of proposals are undergoing field testing. But since the proposed full disorder descriptions, criteria, differential diagnoses, exclusions etc have not been public domain published and because no progress reports have been issued by either work group since 2012, stakeholders are still unable to scrutinize and compare the two sets of current proposals, side by side.

Significant concerns remain around the deliberations of these two working groups:

a) their lack of transparency: there have been no papers or progress reports published on behalf of either group since 2012; the key Gureje and Creed 2012 paper remains behind a paywall;

b) no rationale has been published for the S3DWG’s proposal to call its proposed construct “BDD” when it evidently has greater conceptual concordance with SSD and poor concordance with Fink et al’s BDS, for which the “BDD” term is already in use, synonymously; there has been no discussion by either group for the implications for construct integrity;

c) it remains unclear whether the S3DWG’s “BDD” will incorporate Exclusions for CFS, ME, Fibromyalgia and IBS, which are currently discretely coded for within ICD-10, and which are considered may be especially vulnerable to misdiagnosis or misapplication of a diagnosis of “BDD”, under the construct as it is currently proposed;

[Dr Geoffrey Reed has said that he cannot request Exclusions until the missing G93.3 legacy terms have been added back into the Beta draft, but at such time, he would be happy to do so.]

d) the PCCG’s “BSS” proposed diagnosis appears to be inclusive of children [11] but there is currently no information from the S3DWG on whether their proposed “BDD” diagnosis is also intended to be applied in children and young people;

e) there is no body of independent evidence for the validity, reliability and safety of the application of “SSD”, “BDD”, “BSS” or Fink et al’s (2010) BDS in children and young people;

f) because of the lack of recent progress reports setting out current iterations for disorder descriptions and criteria, it cannot be determined what modifications and adaptations have been made by the PCCG to the Fink et al (2010) BDS disorder description/criteria for specific ICD-11 field test use. Likewise, the only information to which we have access for the criteria that are being field tested for BDD is what little information appears in the Beta draft.

Fink et al’s BDS construct is considered by its authors to have the ability to capture the somatoform disorders, neurasthenia, noncardiac chest pain and other pain syndromes, “functional symptoms”, and the so-called “FSSs”, including CFS, ME, Fibromyalgia and IBS [8][13].

[Under the Fink et al disorder construct, the various so-called specialty “functional somatic syndromes” are considered to be manifestations of a similar, underlying disorder.]

In Lam et al (2012) the PCCG list a number of diseases and conditions for consideration under Differential diagnosis, vis: “Consider physical disease with multiple symptoms, e.g. multiple sclerosis, hyperparathyroidism, acute intermittent porphyria, myasthenia gravis, AIDS, systemic lupus erythematosus, Lyme disease, connective tissues disease.”

Notably, Chronic fatigue syndrome, ME, IBS and Fibromyalgia are omitted from the Differential diagnosis list. The authors are silent about whether their adapted BDS is intended to capture these discretely coded for ICD-10 diagnoses and if not, how these disorder groups could be reliably excluded [11].

ICD Revision has said that it does not intend to classify CFS, ME and Fibromyalgia under Mental and behavioural disorders. However, it has not clarified what measures would be taken to safeguard these patient groups if BSS were to be approved by the RSG for use in the ICD-11-PHC version.

There have been considerable concerns, globally, amongst patients, patient advocacy groups and the clinicians who advise them for the introduction in Denmark of the BDS disorder construct: these concerns apply equally to “BSS”.

It should also be noted that since early 2013, the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy entities, Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis; Chronic fatigue syndrome, have been absent from the public version of the Beta draft. For over two years, now, and despite numerous requests (including requests by UK health directorates, parliamentarians and registered advocacy organizations) proposals for the chapter location and parent classes for these three terms (and their proposed Definitions and other Content Model parameters) have not been released.

Again, I request that these terms are restored to the Beta draft, with a “Change History”, in order that professional and lay stakeholders are able to monitor and participate fully in the revision process, a process from which they are currently disenfranchised.

If any clinicians attempting to follow the revision of the Somatoform disorders share concerns for any of the issues raised in these comments and wish to discuss further, they are most welcome to contact me via “Dx Revision Watch.”


References

1 Frances A. The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill. BMJ. 2013 Mar 18;346:f1580.

2 Allen Frances, Suzy Chapman. DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 May;47(5):483-4.

3 Frances A. DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Jun;201(6):530-1.

4 Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2012;24:556-67.

5 Fink P, Toft T, Hansen MS, Ornbol E, Olesen F. Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9.

6 Creed F, Guthrie E, Fink P et al, Is there a better term than ‘medically unexplained symptoms’?. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68:5-8

7 Rief W, Isaac M. The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? Curr Opin Psychiatry 2014 Sep;27(5):315-9.

8 Fink P, Schroder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):415-26.

9 Medically Unexplained Symptoms, Somatisation and Bodily Distress: Developing Better Clinical Services, Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen, Per Fink (Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

10 In Press: Anna Budtz-Lilly, Per Fink, Eva Ornbol, Mogens Vestergaard, Grete Moth, Kaj Sparle Christensen, Marianne Rosendal. A new questionnaire to identify bodily distress in primary care: The ‘BDS checklist’. J Psychosom Res. [Published J Psychosom Res. June 2015 Volume 78, Issue 6, Pages 536–545]

11 Lam TP, Goldberg DP, Dowell AC, Fortes S, Mbatia JK, Minhas FA, Klinkman MS: Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Family Practice (2013) 30 (1): 76-87.

12 Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Ment Health Fam Med. 2013 Jun;10(2):63-4.

13 Fink et al: Proposed new classification: https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/finkproposednewclass1.png


 

Caveats: The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is not a static document: it is a work in progress, subject to daily edits and revisions, to field test evaluation and to approval by ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive ICD-11 field testing. Chapter numbering, codes and Sorting codes currently assigned to ICD categories may change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies are reorganized. The public version of the Beta draft is incomplete; not all “Content Model” parameters display or are populated; the draft may contain errors and category omissions.

Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 terms from the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Letter to key Revision personnel

Post #322 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-45z

Update: June 12, 2015: This situation is now being looked into by a member of the recently assembled ICD-11 Project Management team.

As previously posted:

Although the development process for ICD-11 has been in progress for eight years, it’s still not known how ICD Revision proposes to classify the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms.

On June 8, I sent a letter, via email, to WHO/ICD Revision, requesting a prompt resolution to this situation:

For the attention of Bedirhan Üstün (WHO/ICD Revision Coordinator, Project Management Team)

CC:

Dr Margaret Chan (Director-General, WHO)
Robert Jakob (Medical Officer, WHO ICD classifications)
Christopher Chute (Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group)
Tarun Dua (lead WHO Secretariat for Topic Advisory Group for Neurology)
Raad Shakir (Chair, Topic Advisory Group for Neurology)
Marjorie S. Greenberg (ex-officio NCHS, WHO-FIC, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group member, team member external assessors for ICD revision process)
Anneke Schmider (WHO Technical Officer, ICD Revision Project Manager)
J Ties Boerma (ICD Revision Project Management team)
Ségolène Aymé (founder Orphanet, chair of ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group for Rare Diseases)
Stefanie Weber (DIMDI German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information, WHO-FIC)


Re: Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy entities from the public version of the Beta drafting platform


Monday, June 8, 2015

Dear Dr Üstün,

At the end of May, a frozen release was posted for the ICD-11 Beta draft.

I remain extremely concerned that there are still no entries in the public Beta, within any linearization, for the three ICD-10 G93.3 legacy entities:

Postviral fatigue syndrome
Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis
Chronic fatigue syndrome

As you are aware, these three entities (plus a dozen or so synonym terms) were removed without explanation from the Diseases of the nervous system chapter of the public version of the Beta draft, in early 2013.

Consequently, for over 2 years, stakeholders throughout the world have been unable to view evolving proposals for the classification of these entities within ICD-11 or to scrutinise proposed chapter location, proposed hierarchies, proposed Definitions and other Content Model parameters.

It is very difficult to monitor, make comments or suggestions where terms are not represented within the draft.

A request submitted by me, in February, via the Proposal Mechanism, to restore these entities to the public Beta has produced no response.

While these three entities remain absent from the Beta draft, stakeholders are effectively disenfranchised from participating in the revision process.

Since the start of the revision process, in 2007, no progress reports, editorials or journal papers have been published on behalf of TAG Neurology discussing the work group’s deliberations for these specific entities.

Since early 2013, when the three entities were removed from the public Beta, there has been no information available, at all.

I am aware that in March 2014, enquiries had been made by English and Scottish Health Directorates and that WHO was jointly approached by several UK registered ME/CFS patient organizations and English parliamentarians. The WHO’s response, at that point, was that proposals for the classification of these terms was unresolved and that more time and more input from the work groups was required [1].

A year later, the need for clarification for current proposals remains unmet.

Given the level of concern amongst stakeholders, globally, would you please look into this matter?

Could you please expedite the restoring of these terms to the Beta draft, with a Change History, in order that the ICD-11 development process can be inclusive of the thousands of clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, advocacy organizations and patients with a stakeholder interest in the classification of these terms.

If it is not possible to restore terms to the Beta while a freeze is in operation, could TAG Neurology be instructed to issue an immediate statement of intention for these terms, in the interim?

Many thanks in anticipation of a swift resolution.

Sincerely,

Suzy Chapman

1 Correspondence, Scottish Health Directorate and WHO, March 2014, obtained under FOI.

Background to this letter:

In ICD-10 Version 2015:

Postviral fatigue syndrome is coded in Chapter VI: Diseases of the nervous system (the Neurology chapter), at code G93.3, under parent class G93 Other disorders of brain (view here).

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is the inclusion term to Postviral fatigue syndrome and assigned the G93.3 code.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is not included in ICD-10 Volume 1: The Tabular List but is indexed to G93.3 in ICD-10: Volume 3: The Alphabetical Index.

(The orange symbol denotes an Index term)

ICD102015

Proposals for ICD-11

In May 2010, a change to the hierarchical relationship between the three terms had been proposed. Whereas Postviral fatigue syndrome had been the Title category term for ICD-10, Chronic fatigue syndrome was proposed as the Title category term for ICD-11.

As part of a substantive reorganization of the Neurology chapter, the parent class, G93 Other disorders of brain (under which the ICD-10 categories G93.0 thru G93.9 were located), is proposed to be retired for ICD-11.

This has meant that the terms that sat under the G93 parent class for ICD-10 would need to be relocated under alternative parent classes for ICD-11 or have new parent classes created for them.

In July 2012, the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform had stood as in my screenshot, below.

It’s not evident in my screenshot, but the asterisk at the end of Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis displayed a hover text denoting its specification as the Inclusion term to ICD Title term, Chronic fatigue syndrome.

Also not evident in this cropped screenshot is the listing of Postviral fatigue syndrome under Synonyms.

At this point, around 14 historical or alternative terms were listed under Synonyms. These additional uncoded for terms, which had included the ICD-10-CM R53.82 terms, chronic fatigue, unspecified and chronic fatigue syndrome nos, had been scraped from other classification and EMR systems as part of the Beta drafting process :

July2512

Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, July 25, 2012.

In November 2012, ICD Revision inserted a scrappy Definition for Chronic fatigue syndrome (this replaced an earlier draft ICD-11 Beta Definition). I have sourced this draft Definition to an internal ICD Revision/Stanford Protege document (line 1983):

Chronic fatigue syndrome is characterized by extreme chronic fatigue of an indeterminate cause, which is disabling andt [sic] does not improve with rest and that is exacerbated by physical or mental activity.

The “Selected Cause” sub linearization was later removed from the public Beta draft and some of the terms that had been listed under it were restored to the Neurology chapter and to other chapters. But Title term, Chronic fatigue syndrome, its Inclusion term and its list of Synonyms were not restored to any chapter.

Since February 2013, no listing can be found in any chapter of the public version of the Beta draft, under any linearization, for any of the terms, Postviral fatigue syndrome, Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis or Chronic fatigue syndrome, either as uniquely coded for ICD Title terms, or as Inclusion terms or as Synonyms to Title terms, or listed in the ICD-11 Beta Index.

So currently, there is no information within the Beta draft for proposals for these three terms.

The public version of the Beta drafting platform displays no editing “Change History” or “Category Notes” for these terms and their continued absence from the draft is hampering professional and public stakeholder scrutiny, discourse and comment.

This is not acceptable for any disease category, given that ICD Revision is promoted by WHO’s, Bedirhan Üstün, as an open and transparent process that is inclusive of all classes of stakeholder. The recent external review of the revision process has called for greater transparency [1].

Since June 2013, my repeated requests for an explanation for the absence of these three terms from the Beta draft and for ICD Revision’s intentions for these terms were ignored by ICD Revision until July 2014, when a response was forthcoming from ICD Revision’s, Dr Geoffrey Reed.

It is understood that Annette Brooke MP also received a response, in July 2014, from WHO’s, Dr Robert Jakob, in respect of the joint organizations’ letter of March 18, for which Ms Brooke had been a co-signatory [2].

What clarifications have been given?

WHO and ICD Revision’s, Dr Geoffrey Reed (Senior Project Officer, Revision of Mental and behavioural disorders), have said that there has been no proposal and no intention to include ME or other conditions such as fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome in the classification of mental disorders.

Dr Reed has said that the easiest way to make this absolutely clear will be through the use of exclusion terms. However, he has said that he would be unable to request that exclusion terms are added to relevant Mental and behavioural disorders categories (e.g. Bodily distress disorder) until the conditions that are being excluded exist in the classification; that at such time, he would be happy to do so.

In August 2014, I submitted two FOI requests, one to the Scottish Health Directorate, one to the English Department of Health. The latter was not deemed specific enough in terms of named health agencies for a response to be generated, but I did receive information regarding the former.

Extract from FOI Response: September 24, 2014: FOI request fulfilled by (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (FOISA),

Information held covering the time period indicated relates to an email exchange on 11 and 12 March 2014 as part of a request for advice in answering Ministerial correspondence.

On 11 March the World Health Organisation WHO were asked “I would be very grateful for your help in confirming the status of an element within the WHO’s ICD 11 regarding ME/CFS. On 25th February in the UK parliament, the Under-Secretary of State for Health informed the UK parliament that the WHO had publicy stated that there was no proposal  to reclassify ME/CFS in ICD-11…I would be very grateful if you can confirm that this is the case and if possible, provide a web link to the original wording so I can include this within the correspondence I am preparing”.

The WHO responded on 12 March; “The question regarding MS/CFS [sic] and ICD-11 has been asked recently by several different parties. At this point in time, the ICD-11 is still under development, and to handle this classification issue we will need more time and input from the relevant working groups. It would be premature to make any statement on the subject below.

The general information on ICD Revision can be accessed here: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/. The current state of development of ICD-11 (draft) can be viewed here (and comments can be made, after self registration): http://www.who.int/classifications/icd11 ”.

A further email on 12 March to the WHO asked; “It would be fair to say then …that work will continue on the draft with an expected publication in 2015?”.

WHO responded on 12 March; “Work on the draft will continue until presentation at the World Health Assembly in 2017**. Before, reviews and field testing will provide input to a version that is available for commenting, as much as possible and proposals can be submitted online* with the mechanisms provided already.”

*Since the three terms are currently not accounted for within the Beta draft this impedes the submission of comments.

**Rescheduled in May, this year; the proposed target for presentation for WHA approval is currently May 2018.

This is all that has been disclosed by WHO/ICD Revision in respect of current proposals for the classification of the three ICD-10 G93.3 terms, despite the fact that ICD-11 has now been under development for 8 years, and prior to the timeline extension in January 2014, the new edition had been scheduled for WHA approval and dissemination in 2015.

There remain 6 important questions to be answered by WHO/ICD Revision:

• under which chapter(s) are PVFS, BME and CFS proposed to be located?
• under which parent classes?
• what hierarchies are proposed, in terms of coded for Title terms, Inclusions, Synonyms?
• which of the terms are to be assigned definitions?
• where will definitions be sourced from?
• when will the terms be restored to the draft to enable scrutiny and comment?

Important caveats: The public Beta platform is not a static document, it is a work in progress, subject to daily editing and revision, to field test evaluation and to approval by the RSG and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive the ICD-11 field tests. Chapter numbering, codes and “sorting codes” currently assigned to ICD categories are not stable and will change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies are reorganized. The public version of the Beta is incomplete; not all “Content Model” parameters display or are populated; the draft may contain errors and omissions.

References and related posts

1 ICD-11 Revision releases External review and Response: shifts projected WHA adoption to 2018

2 Joint Open letter to WHO/ICD Revision over classification of absent G93.3 terms for ICD-11 Beta draft

3 ICD-11 Revision releases External review and Response: shifts projected WHA adoption to 2018

4 Briefing paper on ICD-11 and PVFS, ME and CFS: Part 1

5 Briefing paper on ICD-11 and PVFS, ME and CFS: Part 2

6 Summary of responses from WHO re: Bodily distress disorder, Bodily stress syndrome, Bodily Distress Syndrome

ICD-11 Revision releases External review and Response: shifts projected WHA adoption to 2018

Post #321 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-44N

Update: August 6, 2015

ICD Revision has now published a revised Project Plan and Communication Schedule:

ICD Project Plan 2015 to 2018

 

As previously posted

2017

And so it goes on…

The revision of ICD-10 and development of ICD-11 kicked off in April 2007. The original projected WHA adoption date was 2011/12 [1].

Then a shift to 2015, then to 2017.

WHO has just kicked the can further down the road to May 2018.

In July 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) Office of the Assistant Director General, Health Systems and Innovation, posted a call for expressions of interest from suitable contractors to conduct an interim assessment of the 11th Revision for International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

External assessment was prompted by concerns raised by WHO Member States, UN Statistical Commission and other stakeholder organizations about the status of the revision and the utility of the ICD-11 product.

The External review of ICD-11 Revision’s progress has now been completed.

Last week, WHO quietly released a report on the status of the ICD revision process, its management and resources, the feasibility of meeting its goals and timelines, and its fitness for purpose.

The reviewers’ assessment and recommendations can be read here: External report

Read WHO’s initial response to the report’s findings and the actions ICD Revision proposes to take here: WHO Response to External Report

WHO says:

WHO welcomes the constructive messages of the Report of the ICD-11 Revision Review. WHO is initiating the second phase of the revision process, acting immediately on the Review’s recommendations.

A revised workplan will be formulated before the end of June and submitted for approval to the RSG-SEG. During 2015 the WHO secretariat will be strengthened in terms of project management, communication of progress and plans, documentation and transparency of decision-making and classification expertise, as recommended by the reviewers.

As I predicted, a further shift in the development timeline from WHA adoption in May 2017 to May 2018 is proposed, along with other measures.

References

1 Exhibit 1 WHO Letter August 2007
Letter Saxena, WHO, to Ritchie, IUPsyS (International Union for Psychological Science), August 2007

2 External Review ICD-11 (Consultancy Interim Assessment of 11th ICD Revision, January – March 2015)

3 WHO Response to External Review of ICD-11 (Initial WHO response to the report of the external review of the ICD-11 revision,Department of Health Statistics and Information Systems, May 12 2015)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers

%d bloggers like this: