Update on NHS Digital’s request for addition of SEID to SNOMED CT terminology system

August 1, 2020 by

Post #359 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-58W

Update on NHS Digital’s request for addition of Systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID) to SNOMED CT terminology system

In February 2015, a panel convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), published a report on ME, CFS called “Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness.”[1]

The panel undertook an evidence review and formulated recommendations which had included proposals for new diagnostic criteria and the suggestion of the name “Systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID)”, as part of a number of recommendations put forward for review and consideration by the Report’s sponsor agencies.

Five years on:

  • The CDC has not adopted the term “Systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID)”. In preference, the CDC uses “ME/CFS” on its website clinical information pages and for its Continuing Medical Education (CME) activities.
  • The NCHS-CDC have not added the SEID term to ICD-10-CM, an adaptation of the WHO’s ICD-10, that is mandatory in the US for assigning diagnostic codes for medical billing and reimbursement.
  • The SEID term has not been added to the final update of the WHO’s international edition of ICD-10 (Version: 2019).
  • The SEID term has not been added to the SNOMED CT US Edition by its managers, the National Library of Medicine (NML), either as a new Concept code, or as a Synonym or Child term.
  • The IOM panel’s Report formed part of the literature review for the revision of the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy categories. The WHO and the ICD-11 CSAC and MSAC committees have not included the SEID term in ICD-11.
  • The IOM panel’s suggested case definition has not been subject to field testing by, or on behalf of the CDC. Several studies published since the Report’s release concluded that the proposed SEID case definition lacks reliability and specificity; discussed the unintended consequences of not specifying exclusionary illnesses; and noted the lack of acceptability to patients of the proposed case definition and proposed SEID nomenclature.

A couple of minutes on Google demonstrates that some websites providing clinical information to physicians, healthcare professionals and patients are referring to “Systemic exertion intolerance disease” as though the term had been tested, evaluated and adopted by US federal agencies — when this is not the case.

In the March 2020 issue of the ME Global Chronicle, I reported on a request submitted by NHS Digital in November 2019 for addition of the “Systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID)” term to the SNOMED CT terminology system.

SNOMED CT is used in over 30 countries and is the recommended terminology system in the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia [2].

For NHS England, SNOMED CT UK Edition is the mandatory terminology system across all primary and secondary healthcare settings. The system is used by clinicians in electronic medical records (EMRs), at the point of care, to record findings, symptoms, diagnoses, interventions, procedures etc.

The UK Edition of SNOMED CT terminology system is managed by NHS Digital [3].

Authorized users can register to submit requests for changes or additions to the terminology system via an NHS Digital submission portal. Requests that meet criteria for potential addition to the SNOMED CT International Edition are referred on for consideration by SNOMED International’s terminology specialists.

Submission #30104 (November 30, 2019) requested addition of the term “Systemic exertion  intolerance disease” as a Synonym under the existing SNOMED CT Concept: 52702003 Chronic fatigue syndrome [4].

The request appeared to originate from within the NHS (or other authorized SNOMED CT user) as no other class of stakeholder is referenced as the original requester.

The rationale text in support of request #30104 can be read on the NHS Digital Request Submission Portal, here: http://bit.ly/39Pz4vy

After drawing attention to this request on Twitter, I was contacted in March by a senior member of SNOMED International’s team.

I was advised that request #30104 had been submitted for consideration for addition to the SNOMED CT International Edition; that the request had already been processed and pending any further changes, would be implemented in the International Edition’s July release.

(Note: If the term “Systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID)” was approved for addition to the July 2020 International Edition, the term would then be absorbed into the various national editions when they released their next updates.)

As the IOM panel’s proposed case definition and suggested term have not undergone field testing and evaluation; as the SEID term has not been adopted by US federal agencies; and as NCHS-CDC has made no decision to assign a code for SEID in the US ICD-10-CM for medical billing and reimbursement, it would be premature to approve a request for addition to the SNOMED CT International Edition.

These concerns for the potential addition of an untested, unadopted term to the SNOMED CT system were passed back to SNOMED International’s terminology specialists for their consideration.

In early June, I was informed that the terminology team had reviewed the information provided and concluded that adding “Systemic exertion intolerance disease” as a synonym is premature; that approval of this request had been retracted and SEID would not be included in the July release.

This was further confirmed on a SNOMED CT internal production page (see last entry under heading: “Concepts to be removed completely from the Alpha release content”): https://bit.ly/2Xed60V

The July 2020 release of the International Edition was published on July 31: https://bit.ly/39HA1a2

I can confirm that the two Synonyms terms that had been added under 52702003 Chronic fatigue syndrome for the Alpha production release:

● 3902795018 – SEID – systemic exertion intolerance disease
● 3902796017 – Systemic exertion intolerance disease

have been removed for the finalised July 2020 release*.

*In the event of a request for a change or addition to SNOMED CT not being accepted there is a formal appeals process and the submitter may request a further review of the decision. SNOMED International has confirmed that NHS Digital has not appealed against the decision not to add SEID to the finalised July 2020 release.

An abridged version of this post can be downloaded in PDF format here: https://bit.ly/2XeeS2e

References:

1 Committee on the Diagnostic Criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Institute of Medicine. Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); Feb 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25695122

2 SNOMED CT International Edition browser and browsers for 14 national editions: https://browser.ihtsdotools.org/

3 NHS Digital SNOMED CT browser: http://bit.ly/38OqL1R

4 NHS Digital SNOMED CT Submission Portal: Request 30104:
https://isd.hscic.gov.uk/rsp-snomed/user/guest/request/view.jsf?request_id=30104

About SNOMED CT:

Clinical classifications like ICD-10 and the SNOMED CT terminology system are complementary and serve different purposes. ICD-10 is used after the event by clinicians and coders and focuses on diagnostic coding and data recording for statistical and epidemiological analysis, reimbursement and  resource allocation.

SNOMED CT is used by clinicians in electronic medical records (EMRs), at the point of care, to record findings, symptoms, diagnoses, interventions, procedures etc.

Each clinical concept or phrase is assigned a unique SCTID code to provide a standardised, machine readable terminology for recording and sharing clinical information across multiple health care settings. SCTID codes are mapped to ICD-10 and to ICPC-2e codes for interoperability.

SNOMED CT is considered to be the most comprehensive, multilingual healthcare terminology in the world. It is used in over 30 countries and is the recommended terminology system in the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

SNOMED CT International Edition releases two updates a year. A number of countries maintain national editions which automatically incorporate the updated content from the core SNOMED CT International releases but may also include country specific terminology. The national editions release twice yearly updates on a staggered schedule and their current content may not reflect the changes and additions to the most recent release of the International Edition.

SNOMED CT does not regulate which concepts should or should not be used in clinical records, but makes concepts available in response to requests from stakeholders and in accordance with its editorial and content development principles [1].

Since April 2018, SNOMED CT UK Edition [2] has been the mandatory terminology system for use in NHS primary care, replacing the Read Code (CTV3) terminology system which is now retired. SNOMED CT UK Edition was scheduled for adoption across all clinical, secondary care and mental health settings from April 2020.

Browsers for the SNOMED CT International Edition and the national editions for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, US and a number of other countries can be accessed here:

SNOMED International SNOMED CT Browser: http://browser.ihtsdotools.org/

1 SNOMED CT International Release Content Development:
https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/display/DOCSTART/9.+Content+Development

2 The SNOMED CT UK Edition is managed by NHS Digital, as the designated UK National Release Centre. A public browser can be accessed here: https://termbrowser.nhs.uk/

Advertisement

Filed under CFS, Chronic fatigue syndrome, ICD-10, Institute of Medicine (IOM), Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), NHS, NHS Digital, SNOMED CT, Snomed International, Systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID), Terminology systems Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

WHO retires “Benign” from “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” for final ICD-10 release

February 20, 2020 by

Post #357 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-56g

In my report for the December edition of the ME Global Chronicle, I set out how the G93.3 terms:

Postviral fatigue syndrome

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis

Chronic fatigue syndrome

are classified in the World Health Organization’s international version of ICD-10 and how these terms have been classified for ICD-11.

I have an update on ICD-10 and it’s good news!

In January, the WHO released ICD-10 Version: 2019. With ICD-11 on the horizon, this release will be the final update for the WHO’s international version of ICD-10, apart from corrections and exceptional additions.

In March 2016, a representative from the Canadian Institute for Health Information submitted a request and supporting rationale to the ICD-10 Update and Revision Committee (URC) for removal of the prefix “Benign” from “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis”.

This request for a change was approved by the URC in September 2016 for implementation in the next release. 

For ICD-10 Version: 2019, the G93.3 Tabular List inclusion term is now Myalgic encephalomyelitis.

(The term, “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” has been retained as an Index term.)

 

View the revised listing for the G93.3 codes on the ICD-10 Browser, here: https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/G93.3 or in the screenshot, below.

Note that for ICD-10, Chronic fatigue syndrome is not included in the Tabular List but is included in Volume 3: Index, where it is coded to the G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome concept title term.

For ICD-11, the WHO has retained Postviral fatigue syndrome as the concept title term in Chapter 08: Diseases of the nervous system under parent: Other disorders of the nervous system. The new code for ICD-11 is: 8E49.

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and Chronic fatigue syndrome are both specified as inclusion terms under Postviral fatigue syndrome in ICD-11’s equivalent to the Tabular List and take the 8E49 code. A number of historical and alternative terms are retained as index terms and all 14 index terms are coded to 8E49.

 

This is how the G93.3 terms are classified for ICD-10 Version: 2019:

Image 1: ICD-10 Browser Version: 2019, Accessed February 20, 2020: https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/G93.3

Image location: https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/meicd1019.png

 

The WHO expects Member States to be using the most recent release of ICD-10. But countries will implement the ICD-10 Version: 2019 release according to their own schedules. 

NHS England and ICD-10:

NHS England currently uses ICD-10 Version: 2016. I have contacted NHS Digital’s classifications lead to establish whether NHS Digital intends to implement Version: 2019 or may be considering skipping the new release in preference to implementing ICD-11, at some point in the future.

If there is no mechanism for incorporating selected changes in a new release into earlier versions, NHS England might not be able to absorb this change into the version it is using.

 

Will this change be absorbed automatically for ICD-11?

This revision for the final release of ICD-10 sets a precedent for the national modifications of ICD-10, for example, the U.S. ICD-10-CM and Canadian ICD-10-CA, but also for ICD-11. 

Proposals submitted in March 2017 by Chapman & Dimmock, and by the IACFS/ME for removing “Benign” from “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” were rejected by the WHO in early 2019.

In February, I submitted a new proposal for removal of the “Benign” prefix for ICD-11 citing the URC’s 2016 decision and the implementation of that decision for the final release of ICD-10.

You can read a copy of my new proposal and rationale here: http://bit.ly/BenignICD11

I have updated the PDF included in my report in the December edition of the ME Global Chronicle to reflect this change:

Download the PDF of my updated report here:

Update on the classification of PVFS, ME and CFS for ICD-11 Report One | November 2019 | v3 18/02/20

 

An edited version of this report is scheduled for publication in the March edition of the ME Global Chronicle.

Filed under Chronic fatigue syndrome, Diagnostic classification, Disorder of the nervous system, ICD-10, ICD-10-AM, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, International Classification of Diseases, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Update on the status of the classification of PVFS, ME and CFS for ICD-11: Part Three: WHO rejects Dr Dua’s proposal

November 22, 2018 by

Post #346 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4wZ

Related posts:

Update on the status of the classification of PVFS, ME and CFS for ICD-11: Part One

Update on the status of the classification of PVFS, ME and CFS for ICD-11: Part Two

 

Part Three (and it’s good news, for once)

As reported in Parts One and Two, three proposals for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy categories, Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis; and Chronic fatigue syndrome have sat unprocessed in the ICD-11 Proposal Mechanism for over a year:

the proposal by Dimmock & Chapman (submitted March 26, 2017);

the proposal by Dr Lily Chu on behalf of the IACFS/ME (submitted March 31, 2017);

the proposal by Dr Tarun Dua (submitted November 06, 2017).

If you are not registered for access to the ICD-11 Proposal platform, click to download the proposal submitted by Dimmock & Chapman in PDF format.

 

Dr Tarun Dua’s proposal to kick the G93.3 legacy categories out of the Neurology chapter

Dr Tarun Dua is a medical officer working on the Program for Neurological Diseases and Neuroscience, Management of Mental and Brain Disorders, WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. This WHO department has responsibility for both mental disorders and neurological diseases and disorders. Its Director is Dr Shekhar Saxena.

Dr Dua had acted as lead WHO Secretariat and Managing Editor for ICD Revision’s Topic Advisory Group (TAG) for Neurology, which was chaired by Prof Raad Shakir.

When Dr Dua submitted a proposal, last year, recommending that “Myalgic encephalitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)” [sic] should be removed from the Diseases of the nervous system chapter and reclassified in the Symptoms, signs chapter as a child under Symptoms, signs or clinical findings of the musculoskeletal system, it was initially unstated whose position this controversial recommendation represented.

Read Dr Dua’s proposal in PDF format from Page 5 of this November 2017 commentary.

TAG Neurology had ceased operations in October 2016, leaving proposals for the G93.3 legacy categories hanging and the terms still unaccounted for in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft. The terms were eventually restored to the draft in March 2017.

Since early 2017, we had been advised several times by senior WHO officers that decisions regarding these categories were “on hold” while an in-house evidence review was being undertaken.

Moreover, WHO senior classification expert, Dr Robert Jakob, had assured me (via email in March 2017) that WHO had no intention of dumping these categories in the Symptoms, signs chapter — yet here was Dr Dua calling for precisely that.

The key question being: Did this recommendation represent the outcome of a now concluded evidence review or did it represented only the position of Dr Dua?

Dr Dua eventually stated that “…the proposal [had] been submitted on behalf of Topic Advisory Group (TAG) on Diseases of the Nervous System, and reiterates the TAG’s earlier conclusions.” But neither Dr Dua nor her line manager, Dr Saxena, were willing to provide us with responses to other queries raised in relation to this proposal, including, crucially: How does this proposal relate to the in-house evidence review?

We were subsequently advised by WHO’s Dr John Grove (Director, Department of Information, Evidence and Research) that the systematic evidence review would determine if the terms needed to be moved to any other specific chapter of ICD-11 and that the outcomes would be provided for review by the Medical Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC).

A formal response by Dimmock & Chapman to Dr Dua’s proposal can be read in PDF format here Response by Dimmock & Chapman to Dr Tarun Dua proposal of November 6, 2017.

 

WHO rejects Dr Dua’s proposal 

On November 19, the proposal was marked as Rejected by ICD-11 Proposal Mechanism admins:

Screenshot: Accessed November 20, 2018:

https://icd.who.int/dev11/proposals/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/569175314

This decision to reject Dr Dua’s recommendation that the terms should be relocated under the Symptoms, signs chapter is accompanied by a brief rationale from ICD-11 Proposal Platform admins “Team3 WHO”:

Screenshot: Accessed November 22, 2018:

 

Importantly, the decision to retain the terms in the Disorders of the nervous system chapter is supported by the WHO MSAC and CSAC committees.

(See Reference 10 for WHO/ICD-11’s guiding principles for consideration of legacy terms and potential chapter relocations — guidance with which Dr Dua is familiar and has cited, herself, when drafting other proposals, but which she evidently chose to disregard in the case of the G93.3 legacy categories.)

 

This means that these ICD-10 legacy terms continue to stand as per the “Implementation” version of the ICD-11 MMS that was published in June 2018:

https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f569175314

 

But we are not done yet…

It’s not known when the remaining proposals submitted by myself and jointly with Mary Dimmock will be processed.

There remains a backlog of over 1000 unprocessed proposals, a number of which had met the March 30, 2017 proposal deadline and were expected to have been processed last year, in time for consideration for inclusion in the June 2018 “Implementation” release.

According to summary reports of the WHO-FIC Network Council’s April 26 and September 26, 2018 teleconferences:

  • Between June 2018 and the 2019 [World Health Assembly] resolution, WHO will work to improve user guidance around the classification and any final sorting of the extension codes, but there is not an intention to “reopen the package” of ICD-11 or to make major changes
  • The codes will not change after June 2018, and the URIs [Unique Reference Identifiers] will remain the constant, immoveable identifiers for each concept that underpin the classification
  • An update cycle was agreed by JTF [Joint Task Force] last week, including ongoing update of foundation entities (e.g. index terms, synonyms, extension codes, etc.) with
    • annual updates for entities below the shoreline,
    • a 5-year cycle for update of entities above the shoreline, and
    • a 10-year cycles for updates to the rules.

and from the September 26, 2018 teleconference:

  • WHO has updated the proposal platform to allow voting by CSAC* members and to align the process with the historical practices of the URC [ICD-10 Update and Revision Committee].
  • 90 proposals have been identified from the platform for consideration by the CSAC this year, though not all of them can be reviewed in detail face-to-face during the WHO-FIC Network Annual Meeting 2018. A call may be held in advance to discuss some specific priorities.
  • Given the huge volume of proposals, the meeting will go through the new procedures for the CSAC, review the voting process and tools, overview the proposal platform and how to use it, and determine timelines and workload for after the meeting.
  • CSAC governance will also be presented together with the content of ICD-11 prior to submission of the report on ICD-11 to the WHO Governing Bodies for review by the WHO Executive Board [in January 2019]

Source: WHO-FIC Council Google platform: WHO-FIC Council Teleconferences

*The Classifications and Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC) takes over the role of the ICD-10 Update and Revision Committee (URC). The last update for ICD-10 will be 2019.

 

The ICD-11 MMS is expected to be frozen again in January 2019 in preparation for submission of the report to the Executive Board (EB):

 

Beyond World Health Assembly adoption, ICD-11 will be subject to an update and maintenance cycle:

(See Reference Guide Annex 3.7.1 – 3.7.6 for detailed information on ICD-11 Updating Cycles and Proposal Workflows.)

I’ve been unable to confirm whether the first update released after the June 2018 “Implementation” version would be a January 2019 release, or whether the June 2018 version is intended to remain more or less stable for a further year, until January 2020.

If WHO were to accept any of the proposals contained within my individual submissions and my joint submissions with Mary Dimmock, for example, approving our recommendations for deprecating the prefix “Benign”; deprecating Postviral fatigue syndrome as lead Concept Title; assigning separate Concept Title codes to Myalgic encephalomyelitis and to Chronic fatigue syndrome; or approving Exclusions under Bodily distress disorder (BDD), any approved recommendations would appear initially in the orange ICD-11 Maintenance Platform pending their eventual incorporation into an “Implementation” release.

I will keep you apprised of any significant developments.

 

References:

1 G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-10 Browser Version: 2016. Accessed November 22, 2018

2 World Health Organization finally releases next edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) Dx Revision Watch, July 25, 2018

3 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11 MMS) 2018 version for preparing implementation. Accessed November 22, 2018

4 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-11 (Mortality and Morbidity Statistics) Maintenance Platform. Accessed November 22, 2018 The content made available on this platform is not a released version of the ICD-11. It is a work in progress in between released versions.

5 A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part Two. Dx Revision Watch, April 3, 2017

6 PDF: Proposal: Revision of G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11, Dimmock & Chapman, March 27, 2017

7 Proposal: Revision of G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11, Dr Tarun Dua, November 6, 2017

8 Response by Dimmock & Chapman to Dr Tarun Dua proposal of November 6, 2017, February 15, 2018

9 ICD-11 Reference Guide June 2018

10 Extract from Response to Dr Dua Proposal of November 6 2017: 4. Compliance with WHO standards and other considerations on relocation, Dimmock & Chapman, February 15, 2018

Filed under CFS, Chronic fatigue syndrome, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 MMS 2018, International Classification of Diseases, Myalgic encephalomyelitis, Postviral fatigue syndrome, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Update on the status of the classification of PVFS, ME and CFS for ICD-11: Part Two

August 17, 2018 by

Post #344 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4rs

Part Two

In Part One, I documented key developments around the potential revision of the G93.3 legacy categories for ICD-11. This report picks up from November 2017.

November 06, 2017: Dr Tarun Dua (Medical Officer, Program for Neurological Diseases and Neuroscience, Management of Mental and Brain Disorders, WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse) posts a new proposal for these terms on the ICD-11 proposal platform.

The proposal recommends moving “Myalgic encephalitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)” [sic] from the Diseases of the nervous system chapter to the Symptoms, signs chapter, as a child under Symptoms, signs or clinical findings of the musculoskeletal system.

Click here to read the full proposal Dr Dua November 06, 2017. (If you are not registered with the drafting platform, a copy of Dr Dua’s proposal is included at the end of this commentary.)

November 2017: Dr Dua and Dr Shekhar Saxena are approached by the Countess of Mar to provide clarifications. Dr Dua responds that “the proposal has been submitted on behalf of Topic Advisory Group (TAG) on Diseases of the Nervous System, and reiterates the TAG’s earlier conclusions.” but provides no other clarifications. Dr Saxena does not engage but passes the communication on to Dr Dua, who says she has forwarded the message to the TAG for its consideration. Nothing further is heard from any of them and the enquiries are left hanging.

January 29, 2018: “Team WHO” (an ICD Revision Admin account) posts this comment under the Dr Dua proposal:

“Any decisions regarding this entity are on hold until the results of a review become available.”

February 15, 2018: Dimmock and Chapman submit a robust counter analysis of Dr Dua’s proposal and submit further evidence on March 10.

December 2017 – March 2018: In response to the failure of WHO’s Dr Shekhar Saxena and Dr Tarun Dua to provide adequate clarifications in relation to this proposal, the Countess of Mar is advised to write to Dr John Grove, Director, Information, Evidence and Research and Revision Project Lead to put on record significant concerns for the way in which the potential revision of these ICD categories has been handled, the lack of transparency on the part of TAG Neurology, Revision Steering Group and Joint Task Force, and their unwillingness to engage in dialogue.

Over a number of exchanges, Dr Grove provides the following information:

A systematic evidence review will determine if “the category” needs to be moved to any other specific chapter of ICD-11.

The classification team organizes the review which is expected to be completed by mid April 2018.

The outcomes will be provided for review by the Medical Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC) and will be posted together with the relevant detail on the proposal platform.

New proposals posted on the platform will become part of the workflows of the maintenance mechanism of ICD-11 and be processed in an annual cycle.

The “relevant category will in any case be kept separate from the generic ‘chronic fatigue’ (signs and symptoms).”*

 

*NB: there is no concept term, ‘chronic fatigue’ in ICD-11’s Symptoms, signs chapter. There is a concept term: Fatigue (which was Malaise and fatigue in ICD-10). In March 2017, a long-standing proposal of mine for the addition of exclusions for Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and Chronic fatigue syndrome under Fatigue was approved by the Beta draft admins, although the request for exclusion of Postviral fatigue syndrome wasn’t actioned and remains unprocessed.

There are several speculative reasons for this: ICD Revision may be considering retiring the Postviral fatigue syndrome term for ICD-11; or retaining the term, but only as an Index Term. This might also account for Dr Dua’s reluctance to clarify what her proposal’s intentions are for the Postviral fatigue syndrome term.

There has been no indication whether any evidence review was concluded in mid April, what the outcome was, or whether any potential new proposals for these categories are currently with the MSAC. But no new proposals from ICD Revision, the MSAC or Dr Dua’s department have been posted on the proposal platform or entered directly into the development draft (now known as the “Maintenance Platform”).

Where does this currently leave these terms?

This is how the ICD-11 MMS stood for the release of the “advance preview” version, on June 18, 2018.

(Note the version of ICD-11 as released does not display the Foundation Component, nor are the current 15 Synonyms and Index terms displayed in this “advance preview” release):

https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f569175314

 

As released in June 2018, the content of the ICD-11 MMS is planned to remain stable until January 2019, when it will be prepared for presentation at the May 2019 World Health Assembly.

The Proposal Mechanism will remain open for submission of new proposals from the MSAC, CSAC and public stakeholders. There is a backlog of over 1300 proposals waiting to be processed.

There are currently three proposals for PVFS, BME and CFS waiting to be reviewed:

The proposal submitted by Dimmock & Chapman (on March 26, 2017)

The proposal submitted by Dr Lily Chu on behalf of the IACFS/ME (on March 31, 2017)

The proposal submitted by Dr Tarun Dua (on November 06, 2017)

 

ICD Revision might potentially post new proposals for PVFS, ME and CFS via the Proposal Mechanism at any point in the future.

While new proposals are expected to be processed as part of the annual maintenance cycle, any approved proposal would not immediately be reflected in the released version of the ICD-11 MMS but carried forward for eventual incorporation into a later release, according to the update cycle for that particular class of change. (See Annex 3.7 of the Reference Guide for maintenance and update schedules, how “Minor” and “Major” changes are defined, guidance on submitting new proposals etc.)

My interpretation of the Reference Guide is that relocation of a category to another chapter would constitute a “Change a primary parent” and a “Structural Change” and would be classed as a “Major Change”, for incorporation on the 5 year update cycle, not the annual update cycle.

It is not yet clear in which year the first update cycle is anticipated to start, i.e., whether the next stable release would be published in January 2020, or if the first update cycle is not scheduled to start until a later year.

 

How soon will member states start using ICD-11?

World Health Assembly endorsement will not come into effect until January 01, 2022. After this date, member states can start using ICD-11 for reporting data when their health systems have transitioned to the new edition.

Dr Christopher Chute, chair of ICD-11’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC), predicts that early implementers may require at least five years to prepare their countries’ health systems for transition. Member states using a “clinical modification” of ICD are likely to take longer to develop, test and roll out a country specific adaptation — particularly the United States.

There is no mandatory implementation date — member states will migrate to ICD-11 at their own pace. Global adoption will likely be a patchy and prolonged process and for a period of time, the WHO will be accepting data reported using both ICD-10 and the new ICD-11 code sets.

No countries have announced tentative implementation schedules.

NHS Digital says: “No decision has been made for the implementation of ICD-11 in England, however NHS Digital plan to undertake further testing of the latest release and supporting products that will inform a future decision.”

Until the UK has implemented ICD-11, the mandatory classification and terminology systems for use in the NHS are ICD-10 (Version: 2015) and SNOMED CT UK Edition.

Part One

 

References:

1 G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-10 Browser Version: 2016. Accessed August 14, 2018

2 World Health Organization finally releases next edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) Dx Revision Watch, July 25, 2018

3 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11 MMS) 2018 version for preparing implementation. Accessed August 14, 2018

4 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-11 (Mortality and Morbidity Statistics) Maintenance Platform. Accessed August 14, 2018 The content made available here is not a released version of the ICD-11. It is a work in progress in between released versions.

5 ICD Revision Joint Task Force Meeting Report 22-22 January, 2017, Cologne, Germany. Page 39, Item 39: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advocacy Efforts. Accessed August 14, 2018

6 A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part Two. Dx Revision Watch, April 3, 2017

PDF: Proposal: Revision of G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11, Dimmock & Chapman, March 27, 2017

7 Proposal: Revision of G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11, Dr Tarun Dua, November 6, 2017

8 Response by Dimmock & Chapman to Dr Tarun Dua proposal of November 6, 2017, February 15, 2018

9 ICD-11 Reference Guide June 2018

10 Extract from Response to Dr Dua Proposal of November 6 2017: 4. Compliance with WHO standards and other considerations on relocation, Dimmock & Chapman, February 15, 2018

Filed under CFS, Chronic fatigue syndrome, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 Beta Draft, International Classification of Diseases, Myalgic encephalomyelitis, Postviral fatigue syndrome, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Update on the status of the classification of PVFS, ME and CFS for ICD-11: Part One

August 17, 2018 by

Post #343 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4r3

Part One

In the World Health Organization’s ICD-10, Postviral fatigue syndrome is classified in the neurological chapter of the Tabular List (at G93.3, under parent block: G93 Other disorders of brain, in Chapter VI: Diseases of the nervous system).

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is the inclusion term under Postviral fatigue syndrome and takes the same code. Chronic fatigue syndrome isn’t included in the Tabular List but is indexed in the Alphabetical Index to the G93.3 code.

ICD-10 and ICD-11 do not include the composite terms: “myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome”, “ME/CFS” or “CFS/ME” and composite terms will not be used in this report.

This is how the terms appear in the online browser version of the ICD-10 Tabular List. If you enter “Chronic fatigue syndrome” into the Search field, a drop down displays the code that Chronic fatigue syndrome is indexed to:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en#/G93.3

 

Release of ICD-11

In Post #339 I reported on the release, in June 2018, of an “advance preview” version of ICD-11. This version has been released to enable countries to evaluate the new edition, plan for implementation, prepare translations and begin training health professionals. The WHO still has a lot of work to do before the full ICD-11 “implementation package” and companion publications are completed.

ICD-11 is scheduled for presentation at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2019 for adoption by member states but WHA endorsement won’t come into effect until January 01, 2022. After that date, member states can begin using the new edition for data reporting — if their health systems are ready. There is no mandatory implementation date and member states will be migrating to ICD-11 at their own pace and according to their countries’ specific timelines, requirements and resources.

 

Update on classification for ICD-11

The progression of these three ICD-10 categories through the ICD-11 drafting process has been shambolic, mired in obfuscation, immensely frustrating for stakeholders — and still not resolved.

If you would prefer to jump to a report on how these three terms currently stand in ICD-11, as released in June 2018, and skip the key developments, go to Part Two

Key developments: tracking the progress of the ICD-10 G93.3 categories through the iCAT, Alpha and Beta drafting phases, between May 2010 and June 2018:

May 2010: The ICD-10 parent class, Other disorders of brain, is retired for ICD-11. Its retirement affects a number of categories that sit under it, not just Postviral fatigue syndrome.

A change of hierarchy between the three terms is proposed (Screenshot).

Chronic fatigue syndrome is proposed to replace Postviral fatigue syndrome as the new “Concept Title” term, with Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis specified as its inclusion term (Screenshot). Postviral fatigue syndrome is proposed to be relocated under Synonyms to new Concept Title, Chronic fatigue syndrome.

All three terms are later removed from under parent block: Other disorders of the nervous system and placed in a “holding pen” for categories for which decisions are needed to be made or while further chapter restructuring is being carried out.

February 2013: The Beta drafting platform admins or the managing editors for Topic Advisory Group for Neurology inexplicably remove CFS, BME and PVFS from the public version of the Beta platform. No rationale is provided for their removal. No comments or suggestions for edits can be submitted for these terms since the terms are no longer displaying in the draft. This is how proposals for the terms had stood in early 2013, at the point at which they were removed from the public draft (Screenshot).

July 2015: Following a teleconference with the WHO’s Dr Robert Jakob and Anneke Schmider, Chapman and Dimmock provide ICD Revision and Topic Advisory Group for Neurology with a list of neurological and immunological studies and other resources to inform the revision process and the literature review.

February 2017: The three terms have now been missing from the public version of the Beta drafting platform for over four years.

Advocates and international patient organizations lobby the co-chairs and members of the ICD Revision Joint Task Force to place the matter of the continued absence of these terms from the public Beta draft on the agenda for the Joint Task Force’s February 20-22, 2017 meeting, in Cologne.

These appeals do result in the matter being tabled for discussion, as noted in the Meeting Report (Item 39, p39). But no immediate action is taken to restore the missing terms to the Beta draft and no progress report on intentions for these terms is forthcoming.

March 26, 2017: PVFS, BME and CFS are finally restored to the Beta draft under Other disorders of the nervous system, but with this caveat from the Beta draft admin team:

While the optimal place in the classification is still being identified, the entity has been put back to its original place in ICD. Team WHO 2017-Mar-26 – 14:46 UTC

PVFS is restored as the lead (Concept Title) term, as it is in ICD-10. BME and CFS are both specified as Inclusion terms. There is a list of around 15 alternative and historical terms under Synonyms and Index Terms — but “the optimal place in the classification is still being identified.”

At this point, ICD-11 has been under development for nearly ten years but Topic Advisory Group for Neurology has yet to publish any progress reports on its proposals for these ICD-10 categories.

This is how the terms stood after they were restored to the Beta draft in March 2017:

 

March 27, 2017: Suzy Chapman and Mary Dimmock finalize and submit a detailed proposal and rationale for PVFS, BME and CFS via the Beta draft proposal platform. This submission meets the March 30, 2017 proposal deadline. The proposal and rationale is supported by international patient organizations and patients. Click to download a PDF of the Proposal and Rationale.

(This proposal remains unprocessed and uncommented on by ICD Revision despite having met the proposal deadline.)

November 06, 2017: A new proposal for these terms is posted by Dr Tarun Dua.

Dr Dua is Medical Officer, Program for Neurological Diseases and Neuroscience, Management of Mental and Brain Disorders, WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. This WHO department has responsibility for both mental disorders and neurological diseases. Its Director is Dr Shekhar Saxena.

Dr Dua had acted as lead WHO secretariat and managing editor to the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology, which had been chaired by Prof Raad Shakir.

It is initially unclear who owns this proposal and whose position it represents since Topic Advisory Group for Neurology had ceased operations in October 2016, leaving proposals for these terms hanging. We had been advised by the WHO several times since early 2017 that a literature review was still in progress:

Is this proposal the outcome of a now concluded literature review and do these recommendations already have the approval of ICD Revision?

Or does this proposal represent only the position of Dr Dua or the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse?

Four weeks after submitting these recommendations, Dr Dua responds:

“…the proposal has been submitted on behalf of Topic Advisory Group (TAG) on Diseases of the Nervous System, and reiterates the TAG’s earlier conclusions.”

but neither Dr Dua, Dr Saxena or (what remains of) TAG Neurology will provide any responses to requests for additional clarifications.

 

Dr Tarun Dua’s proposal

The proposal recommends that “Myalgic encephalitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)” [sic] should be removed from the Diseases of the nervous system chapter and reclassified in the Symptoms, signs chapter, as a child under Symptoms, signs or clinical findings of the musculoskeletal system.

Note that Dr Dua has not taken the existing ICD category terms as her reference point — ICD does not use the term, “Myalgic encephalitis” or the composite terms, “Myalgic encephalitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” or “ME/CFS.”

It is not evident from the proposal what Dr Dua/TAG Neurology intends to do with the current Concept Title, Postviral fatigue syndrome — which the proposal does not mention, at all. Nor can it be determined what new hierarchy is being proposed between the terms. Nor is any rationale provided for using different nomenclature to the existing ICD terms.

Leaving aside the proposal, per se, the rationales that accompany it, the misconceptions contained within it and the narrow range of studies it relies on, the submission is sloppy and not fit for purpose.

The rationale for the proposal includes:

“…the lack of evidence regarding any neurological etiopathogenesis of chronic fatigue syndrome…

“When there is sufficient evidence and understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms, diagnostic biomarkers, and specific treatments, the syndrome can be appropriately classified within the proper block.

“The predominant symptom of those with ME/CFS present is severe fatigue, a manifestation of skeletal muscle dysfunction…

“Epidemiological and Pathophysiological evidence is limited, conflicting, and does not support ME/CFS as a disease of the nervous system or with a principally neurobiological underpinning…

“ME/CFS is thus not a disease of the nervous system. It should be categorized in the Signs and Symptoms chapter given the lack of clear evidence pointing to the etiology and pathophysiology of this syndrome until evidence to organ placement is clarified in years to come.”

 

Click here to read the full proposal Dr Dua November 06, 2017. (If you are not registered for access to the proposals platform, a copy of Dr Dua’s proposal is included at the end of this commentary for ease of access.)

One also has to question why this proposal was submitted at this point when advocates had been advised several times that an in-house evidence review was in progress.

This proposal from a staffer in the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse (submitted apparently on behalf of a retired external advisory group) appeared to sit outside that evidence review. But when questioned about the proposal’s status, no-one within WHO seemed to want to have to acknowledge its existence or clarify whether and how it related to the evidence review.

 

Lack of consensus between WHO staffers and ICD Revision

In March 2017, Dr Robert Jakob, Team Leader Classifications and Terminologies, had given the assurance, via an email sent to Suzy Chapman (Dx Revision Watch) and CCd to Stefanie Weber; Dr Christopher Chute; Linda Best; Molly Meri Robinson Nicol; Dr Geoffrey Reed; Dr Tarun Dua; Dr Ties Boerma and the Countess of Mar, that:

“As discussed earlier, chronic fatigue syndrome will not be lumped into the chapter ‘signs and symptoms.'”

Yet this proposal submitted by Dr Dua proposes to do just that.

Evidently, there is a lack of consensus between the WHO’s senior classification lead, Dr Robert Jakob, and Dr Dua/TAG Neurology.

Dr Dua’s proposal also fails to take into consideration WHO/ICD-11 guiding principles on relocation of legacy terms to other chapters. For an expanded commentary on ICD-11 principles concerning potential relocations see Extract from Response to Dr Dua Proposal of November 6 2017.

Nor do the recommendations consider any proposed relocation in the context of data collection, statistical analysis and backward compatibility with ICD-10 and its clinical modifications.

To continue with the status of these terms in the ICD-11 draft, up to its release in June 2018, go to Part Two

 

References:

1 G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-10 Browser Version: 2016. Accessed August 14, 2018

2 World Health Organization finally releases next edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) Dx Revision Watch, July 25, 2018

3 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11 MMS) 2018 version for preparing implementation. Accessed August 14, 2018

4 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome, ICD-11 (Mortality and Morbidity Statistics) Maintenance Platform. Accessed August 14, 2018 The content made available here is not a released version of the ICD-11. It is a work in progress in between released versions.

5 ICD Revision Joint Task Force Meeting Report 22-22 January, 2017, Cologne, Germany. Page 39, Item 39: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advocacy Efforts. Accessed August 14, 2018

6 A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part Two. Dx Revision Watch, April 3, 2017

PDF: Proposal: Revision of G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11, Dimmock & Chapman, March 27, 2017

7 Proposal: Revision of G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11, Dr Tarun Dua, November 6, 2017

8 Response by Dimmock & Chapman to Dr Tarun Dua proposal of November 6, 2017, February 15, 2018

9 ICD-11 Reference Guide June 2018

10 Extract from Response to Dr Dua Proposal of November 6 2017: 4. Compliance with WHO standards and other considerations on relocation, Dimmock & Chapman, February 15, 2018

Filed under CFS, Chronic fatigue syndrome, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 Beta Draft, International Classification of Diseases, Myalgic encephalomyelitis, Postviral fatigue syndrome, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

World Health Organization finally releases next edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)

July 25, 2018 by

Post #339 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4nC

(Key links from this post are also available on the ICD-11 2018 tab page.)

After 11 years in development and four extensions to the timeline, the World Health Organization (WHO) finally released a version of ICD-11 on June 18th.

Advanced preview

The WHO is presenting this June release as an “advance preview” to enable countries to start planning for implementation, prepare national translations and begin training health professionals.

ICD-11 MMS is scheduled for presentation at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2019 for adoption by member states, but WHA endorsement won’t come into effect until January 1, 2022. After that date, member states can begin using the new edition for data reporting — if they are ready.

The WHO has bought itself a further three and half years in which to complete the preparation of implementation and support materials and finalize companion publications and other derivatives.

Dr Christopher Chute, chair of ICD-11’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC), predicts that early implementers may require around five years to prepare their countries’ health systems for transition. Member states using a “clinical modification” of ICD are likely to take longer to develop, test and roll out a country specific adaptation.

There is no mandatory implementation date — member states will migrate to ICD-11 at their own pace and according to their countries’ specific timelines, requirements and resources.

Global adoption will likely be a patchy and prolonged process and for a period of time, WHO will be accepting data recorded using both ICD-10 and the new ICD-11 code sets.

No countries have announced implementation schedules. NHS Digital says:

NHS Digital – ICD-11 Launch

“…No decision has been made for the implementation of ICD-11 in England, however NHS Digital plan to undertake further testing of the latest release and supporting products that will inform a future decision.”

In the meantime, the mandatory classification and terminology systems for use in the NHS are ICD-10* and SNOMED CT UK Edition**.

*NHS currently mandating ICD-10 Version: 2015.
**Read Codes (CTV-2 and CTV-3) are retired. SNOMED CT became the mandatory terminology system for use in NHS primary care in April 2018. Secondary Care, Acute Care, Mental Health, Community systems, Dentistry and other systems used in the direct management of care of an individual are scheduled to adopt SNOMED CT as the mandatory clinical terminology before 1 April 2020.

Key links

ICD-11 launch News Release

Launch information and short videos: ICD-11: Classifying disease to map the way we live and die

A dedicated website for ICD-11 information has been launched: https://icd.who.int

ICD-11 Beta Draft becomes ICD-11 Maintenance Platform

The orange ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is renamed to the “ICD-11 Maintenance Platform” and will remain in the public domain as a “work in progress” between stable releases.

The content on the orange platform will change as the substantial backlog of earlier proposals and new proposals submitted since the June 2018 release are processed.

An approved proposal for an addition or other change won’t immediately be reflected in the released version of the ICD-11 MMS but carried forward for eventual incorporation into a later release, according to the update cycle for that particular class of change.

There is a current backlog of over 1000 proposals waiting to be processed. New comments and proposals will continue to be accepted (see Annex 3.7 of the Reference Guide for maintenance and update schedules and guidance on submitting new proposals).

(If you were registered with the Beta drafting platform for access to the Comments function and Proposals Mechanism your account will work for the Maintenance Platform and you will be able to access historical comments and proposals.)

The maintenance and update of ICD-11 will be advised by the Classifications and Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC); the Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC); the Mortality Reference Group; the Morbidity Reference Group; and the Functioning and Disability Reference Group.

It is currently unclear in which year the first update cycle is anticipated to start, i.e., whether the next stable version would be released in January 2020, or in a later year.

The ICD Revision Topic Advisory Groups and sub working groups ceased operations in October 2016 and the Joint Task Force is expected to be stood down later this year.

The ICD-11 Maintenance Platform displays both the Foundation Component and the combined Mortality and Morbidity Statistics linearization:

https://icd.who.int/dev11/f/en#/

The ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11 MMS) 2018 version is on a new blue platform:

https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en

This platform currently displays only the MMS Linearization codes, not the Foundation Component which contains all the ICD entities. As released in June 2018, the content is planned to remain stable until January 2019, in preparation for presentation at the May 2019 World Health Assembly.

There is a coding tool here:

ICD-11 Coding Tool Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (MMS) 2018:

https://icd.who.int/ct11_2018/icd11_mms/en/release#/

The ICD-11 Reference Guide (the equivalent of ICD-10’s Volume 2) is here:

https://icd.who.int/browse11/content/refguide.ICD11_en/html/index.html

(At the time of publication, there is no PDF version of the Reference Guide only an html version.)

What hasn’t been released yet?

Not all disorder “Descriptions” texts and other “Content Model” parameters have been populated and the full ICD-11 implementation package isn’t completed.

An updated ICD Revision information page states: “A suite of tools and functionality facilitate implementation and use of ICD-11.” But not all the tools and other materials listed under the Implementation Support tab are currently available.

The list also mentions “Specialty versions” but none of these are available; for example, the ICD-11 Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines for Mental and Behavioural Disorders (the equivalent to ICD-10’s “Blue Book”) hasn’t been released yet.

This companion publication provides expanded clinical descriptions, differential diagnoses, diagnostic guidelines and codes for the categories in Chapter 06: Mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders including: “Essential (Required) Features, Boundaries with Other Disorders and Normality, and Additional Features sections. Additional sections (e.g., Culture-Related Features).”

Practitioners who have signed up to the Global Clinical Practice Network have had the opportunity to review and comment on drafts of the full clinical description and diagnostic guideline texts but drafts have not been available for public stakeholder review.

It’s not known whether this specialty mental disorder publication is planned to be released later this year or if the content cannot be finalized until after the ICD-11 MMS code sets have been ratified, in May 2019.

ICD-11 PHC: the revision of the 1996 publication: Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care: ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version (aka “ICD-10 PHC”) has not been released, either.

Drafts of the full texts for the disorder descriptions, as currently proposed for the 27 mental disorders for inclusion in ICD-11 PHC, are not available for public stakeholder scrutiny. There is no publicly available timeline for the finalization and release of ICD-11 PHC nor is it clear whether any additional field trials are in progress or have been recommended. NB: This publication will not be mandatory for use by WHO member states and it does not override the ICD-10 and ICD-11 code sets.

Additional materials

Brief Report from the Director-General: World Health Organization, EXECUTIVE BOARD EB143/13, 143rd session April 9, 2018, Provisional agenda item 5.2: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: update on the eleventh revision: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB143/B143_13-en.pdf

Presentation Slides: ICD 11th revision, Member State Information Session Geneva, May 14, 2018, Dr John Grove, Director, Department of Information, Evidence, and Research, WHO and Dr Robert Jakob, Team Lead, Classifications, Terminologies and Standards, WHO https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/icd11.pdf

Audio file from WHO Press Conference: June 14, 2018, Release of ICD-11 – the 11th revision of the International Classification of Disease, Dr Shekhar Saxena, Director, Department for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, WHO, Dr Robert Jakob, Team Lead, Classifications, Terminologies and Standards, WHO

Mp3 audio file [39:25 min]:

 

Presentation by Dr Michael First: Differences Between ICD-11 Classification of Mental & Behavioural Disorders and DSM-5. Nasjonal kompetansetjeneste ROP, Published July 20, 2018 [32:38 mins]

https://rop.no/roptv/hva-er-forskjellene-mellom-psykiske-lidelser-i-icd-11-og-dsm-5/

Filed under Diagnostic classification, Dr Robert Jakob, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 in the media, ICD-11 MMS 2018, International Classification of Diseases, Terminology systems, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

%d bloggers like this: