Medical Classification WHO ICD codes by Mary Schweitzer

October 21, 2011 by

Medical Classification WHO ICD codes by Mary Schweitzter

Post #105 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1j9

Mary Schweitzer

October 14, 2011

There has of late been speculation that it would be bad for U.S. patients if CFS and M.E. were placed in the same category in the neurology chapter of ICD-10-CM, the “clinical manual” of ICD-10 that will be adopted for use in the United States.

But the fact of the matter is that in ICD-10, CFS already IS coded to G93.3, “PVFS and M.E.” in the index, which is as authoritative as the tabular version. [PVFS stands for Post-Viral Fatigue Syndrome, and is not diagnosed very frequently any more – not at all in the U.S.]. It already IS coded in neurology.

110 nations use ICD-10 as-is, including the UK. Australia has a clinical version that does not alter the codes for M.E. or CFS. But Canada and Germany have clinical versions that place CFS in the tabular version of ICD-10, in G93.3 with M.E. In fact, it was the Canadian clinical version, ICD-10-CA, which led to the highly regarded Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME/CFS in 2003.

NOBODY EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES CODES CFS IN THE “R” CHAPTER. If we coded CFS at R53.82, which was the plan of NCHS, we would have been the ONLY nation in the world to do so.

Furthermore, M.E. is not a known diagnosis in the U.S. (WE know about it, but very few doctors do.) There is no definition for it approved by CDC. We can now point to the new definition that was published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, but that is more likely to enable researchers in the US and Canada to use M.E. if they want to, than to trickle down to U.S. clinicians [1]. Part of the problem is that when M.E. replaced atypical polio as a disease name in British commonwealth nations and Europe, in the U.S. the new name was epidemic neuromyesthenia, which has not (to my knowledge) been diagnosed in decades.

So if CFS gets coded as R53.82 in the U.S.’s ICD-10-CM, yes, M.E. will be less likely to confuse with CFS – but that would only be in the U.S., and in the U.S. we only get diagnosed with that revolting name CFS anyway. At least we could get them scratching their heads and asking, “What is M.E.?” if both diseases were placed together where those of you outside the U.S. already have it.

Given that U.S. doctors do not have a high opinion of CFS, keeping it under “R” in “vague signs and symptoms” would only reinforce their prejudice against it as a “garbage diagnosis” – something you diagnose when you run out of ideas.

Finally, there was an inadvertent error in an earlier Co-Cure message about getting CFS out of the “R” category. The “R” category is not for psychiatric diagnoses.

British psychiatrists use “fatigue syndrome,” which is coded at F48.0 under neuroses at “neurasthenia.”. Then when they write about it, they mix and match terms so it looks as if CFS is the same thing, and therefore it goes in F48.0. That is a serious problem in the UK. [I have to admit to being alarmed recently when a U.S. virologist connected CFS not to the history of atypical polio, which is pretty well established, but to the arcane nineteenth century diagnosis of neurasthenia. Please don’t do that!]

We are not (I hope) in current danger of being coded under neuroses at F48.0, neurasthenia, in the U.S. But the “R” diagnosis is sufficiently vague that it wouldn’t be difficult to use it to claim CFS patients really have CSSD (Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder), the category British psychiatrist and CBT advocate Michael Sharpe is trying to shoehorn into DSM-5, the new version of the American Psychiatric Association’s huge diagnostic tome. So it does leave us vulnerable [2].

To those outside the U.S. I would say, look to ICD-11. That’s what will affect you the most. To those in the U.S. (where we are finally getting around to adopting ICD-10-CM two decades after ICD-10 was written), what WE need is simply to get in step with the rest of the world now.

Mary M. Schweitzer PhD

Related material

[1] New International Consensus Criteria for M.E., Journal of Internal Medicine

Volume 270, Issue 4, pages 327–338, October 2011

Carruthers, B. M., van de Sande, M. I., De Meirleir, K. L., Klimas, N. G., Broderick, G., Mitchell, T., Staines, D., Powles, A. C. P., Speight, N., Vallings, R., Bateman, L., Baumgarten-Austrheim, B., Bell, D. S., Carlo-Stella, N., Chia, J., Darragh, A., Jo, D., Lewis, D., Light, A. R., Marshall-Gradisbik, S., Mena, I., Mikovits, J. A., Miwa, K., Murovska, M., Pall, M. L. and Stevens, S. (2011), Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. Journal of Internal Medicine, 270: 327–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x

Abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x/abstract

Full text in html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x/full

Full text in PDF
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x/pdf

Or Open PDF here:  International ME Consensus Criteria

[2] DSM-5 Development: Somatic Symptom Disorders

http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision/Pages/SomaticSymptomDisorders.aspx

Filed under CFSAC meetings, Clinical Modification, Coalition4ME/CFS, DSM-5, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, Somatic Symptom Disorder, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre

Coding CFS in ICD-10-CM: CFSAC and the Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

October 20, 2011 by

Coding CFS in ICD-10-CM: CFSAC and the Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

Post #102 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1hd

Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

ICD-10-CM

 

CFSAC discusses ICD-10-CM coding concerns

The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services via the Assistant Secretary for Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on issues related to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

Go here for the current Roster of Voting and Ex Officio committee members.

CFSAC holds twice yearly public meetings and meeting Agendas, Minutes, Meeting Materials, Presentations, Public Testimonies, Meeting Videocasts and CFSAC’s Recommendations to the DHHS are published on the CFSAC website.

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the Federal agency responsible for use of the WHO’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10) in the United States, has developed a clinical modification of the classification for morbidity purposes. The ICD-10 is used to code and classify mortality data from death certificates, having replaced ICD-9 for this purpose as of January 1, 1999.

The WHO has authorized the development of an adaptation of ICD-10 for use in the United States for U.S. government purposes. Although a U.S. specific adaptation, with U.S. committees and technical advisory panels responsible for its development and oversight, all modifications to the ICD-10 must conform to WHO ICD conventions.

ICD-10-CM is planned as the replacement for ICD-9-CM, volumes 1 and 2.

U.S. lags behind

While much of the world has been using the ICD-10 for many years and is looking to move onto ICD-11 (currently  scheduled for implementation in 2015), the U.S. has been slow to make the transition from ICD-9-CM to a “clinical modification” of ICD-10.

ICD-10-CM development has been a long drawn out process and ICD-10-CM isn’t scheduled for implementation until October 1, 2013.

So when U.S. coders, clinicians, medical insurers and reimbursers are adapting to using ICD-10-CM, much of the rest of the world will be gearing up for ICD-11, which is planned to be a significantly different product to ICD-10, in terms of its structure, content, presentation, accessibility and its capacity, as an electronic publication, for continuous update and revision.

 

CFSAC new Recommendation to HHS

At the last CFSAC meeting (May 10-11, 2011), an hour long slot had been tabled on the agenda for Day One for discussion of concerns around the NCHS’s current proposals for the coding of CFS within ICD-10-CM.

The Committee was also informed of the considerable concerns for the implications for CFS and ME patients of the draft criteria and new categories being proposed by the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” work group.

A new CFSAC Recommendation to HHS was proposed by Committee member, Dr Lenny Jason, seconded by Dr Nancy Klimas, and voted unanimously in favour of by the Committee [1].

This new Recommendation, set out below, restates and expands on the Recommendation that CFSAC had made to HHS, in August 2005.

CFSAC rejects current proposals to code CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD-10-CM under R53.82: Chronic fatigue, unspecified > Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS. CFSAC continues to recommend that CFS should be classified in ICD-10-CM in Chapter 6 under “diseases of the nervous system” at G93.3, in line with ICD-10 and ICD-10-CA (the Canadian Clinical Modification), and in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations of August 2005. CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi-system disease and rejects any proposals to classify CFS as a psychiatric condition in US disease classification systems. (Note: no disease classification system under HHS’ control proposes to move or to include CFS in or among psychiatric conditions.)     Source: CFSAC Recommendations – May 10-11, 2011

 

What are the current proposals?

For ICD-10-CM, the current proposals for the classification of PVFS and ME are:

that Postviral fatigue syndrome would be classified within Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system under the parent class “G93 Other disorders of brain”, coded at G93.3.

(Benign) Myalgic encephalomyelitis would be classified as an Inclusion term under Title category “G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome”.

This is in keeping with the international ICD-10, from which ICD-10-CM has been developed. See Footnote [4] for link to page setting out current proposals for ICD-10-CM.

In ICD-10, Chronic fatigue syndrome is indexed to G93.3 in Volume 3 The Alphabetical Index. 

In ICD-10-CA, the Canadian Clinical Modification of ICD-10, Chronic fatigue syndrome is classified in the Tabular List in Chapter 6, under “G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome”.

For ICD-11, the proposal is that all three terms should be classified within Chapter 6.

But for ICD-10-CM, instead of coding Chronic fatigue syndrome to G93.3, the proposal is  to retain Chronic fatigue syndrome in the R codes chapter (which is Chapter 16 in ICD-9-CM and will be Chapter 18 in ICD-10-CM), where it would be coded thus:

Chapter 18  (Symptoms and signs and ill defined conditions)

[…]

R53.8 Other malaise and fatigue

R53 Malaise and fatigue

R53.82 Chronic fatigue, unspecified
              Chronic fatigue syndrome (NOS)

Excludes1: postviral fatigue syndrome (G93.3)

(In ICD, NOS stands for “Not Otherwise Specified”.)

 

What is NCHS’s rationale for retaining CFS as (CFS NOS) in the R code chapter?

According to the background document Dr Wanda Jones presented to the Committee:

As it relates to CFS the use of two codes is consistent with the classification as there would be a code to capture CFS when the physician has determined the cause as being due to a past viral infection (G93.3) or if the physician has not established a link with a past viral infection (R53.82).

If code R53.82 were eliminated it would not be possible to disaggregate cases that are now distinguishable through the use of two codes.

There is a general equivalence map between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes, however, if a concept is not carried over from the earlier version to the newer version data will be lost going forward.

Source: Extract: ICD-related questions from CFSAC for May 2011 meeting

 
Dr. Jones clarified for the Committee that if, in the clinician’s judgment, it was considered there is enough evidence to attribute the patient’s illness to a viral illness onset then the clinician could code to G93.3 (Postviral fatigue syndrome). If “however they could not identify where the trajectory developed toward CFS, then it would wind up in the R codes.” [1]
 
It has been further confirmed that testing for a viral illness is not required to assign a code – that coding is based on the clinician’s judgment.
 
And from the NCHS September 14 meeting Proposals document:
In ICD-10-CM chronic fatigue syndrome NOS (that is not specified as being due to a past viral infection) was added to ICD-10-CM in Chapter 18 at R53.82, Chronic fatigue, unspecified. ICD-10-CM retained code G93.3 to allow the differentiation of cases of fatigue syndrome where the physician has determined the cause as being due to a past viral infection from cases where the physician has not established a post viral link. It should be noted that including chronic fatigue syndrome NOS at code G93.3 would make it difficult to disaggregate cases that are now distinguishable through the use of two separate codes.
 

Is this a new proposal?

No. This is a long-standing proposal that had been known about since at least 2007. It has been discussed on forums and raised in mailings on the Co-Cure Listserv list in 2007 and 2008 by U.S. advocates Mary Schweitzer and Jean Harrison, and flagged up by others in the U.S. and elsewhere, in the last couple of years.

The proposed coding of CFS, PVFS and (B) ME in the forthcoming ICD-10-CM had already been discussed at public CFSAC meetings in June 2004, when the NCHS’s, Donna Pickett, had given a presentation and again in September 2004, January 2005 and May 2010.

So the proposed coding of PVFS, (B) ME and CFS for ICD-10-CM is by no means a new issue.

As noted, ICD-10-CM has been under development for many years. A public comment period ran from December 1997 through February 1998. In 2001, the proposal had been that all three terms should be coded to G93.3, in keeping with the placement in the WHO’s ICD-10 [2].

I am advised that at one point, all three terms: PVFS, (B) ME and CFS, were proposed to be coded under G93.3, with a “CFS NOS” retained in the R codes. But that subsequently, the placement of CFS in Chapter 6 under the G93 parent class was deleted, leaving “CFS NOS” orphaned, in Chapter 18.

 

What is the ICD “R code” chapter for?

There is a four page ICD-11 Discussion Document that is worth a read: Signs and Symptoms [Considerations for handling categories and concepts currently found in chapter 18 of ICD-10, “SYMPTOMS, SIGNS AND ABNORMAL CLINICAL AND
LABORATORY FINDINGS NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED”, (R-codes), authors: Aymé, Chalmers, Chute, Jakob.] Open here: Discussion: Signs and Symptoms (Chapter 18)

The R codes chapter is the ICD chapter for “Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified (R00-R99)”

“This chapter includes symptoms, signs, abnormal results of clinical or other investigative procedures, and ill defined conditions regarding which no diagnosis classifiable elsewhere is recorded.” Source: ICD-10-CM Chapter 18, 2011 release.

 

Dustbin Diagnosis

At the May CFSAC meeting, Committee member, Steven Krafchick, a medical and disability attorney, raised his considerable concerns for the legal and medical insurance ramifications of coding CFS under the “R codes” at the May CFSAC meeting [1]. 

Coding CFS under R53.82 for “non viral onset” cases will consign patients to a dustbin diagnosis that will continue to confuse and conflate Chronic fatigue syndrome with Chronic fatigue. There are no certainties that clinicians will code new cases using the unfamiliar G93.3 PVFS and ME codes or that existing CFS patients will get “upgraded” to G93.3 ME.

Coding CFS under R53.82 under ill defined conditions will make patients more vulnerable to the proposals of the APA’s DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group.

Coding CFS under R53.82 will render ICD-10-CM out of line with at least four versions of ICD-10, including Canada’s ICD-10-CA, which has all three terms classified in the Tabular List under G93.3, and out of line with proposals for the forthcoming ICD-11, scheduled for implementation in 2015. The U.S. would be the only country with CFS coded in the R codes.

 

ICD-10-CM CFS CF

 

Have representations been made to the NCHS Committee?

Although representations around the coding of CFS for ICD-10-CM have been made to CDC over the years, no stakeholder representations at NCHS meetings are recorded.

At the May CFSAC meeting, Dr Jones informed the Committee that the ICD-CM process is a public process and that there is an opportunity to input into the update of ICD-9-CM and development of ICD-10-CM as part of that process, and to engage with the NCHS Committee via regularly scheduled public meetings. Dr Jones confirmed that NCHS has stated that there has been no public presence from the CFS community at these meetings.
 
It was established during the May meeting that the deadline for submitting representations for new inclusions or modifications to existing proposals for ICD-10-CM for tabling for discussion at the next NCHS Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting would close on July 15, for a meeting scheduled for September 14. It was further noted this would be the last meeting before implementation of the partial code freeze and that this was therefore a time sensitive issue.
 
Committee members discussed the potential for a representative of CFSAC attending the September 14 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting if it were permissible for CFSAC to give public testimony to another advisory body; Dr Jones stated that she would check the rules. Medical attorney, Steven Krafchick, had been particularly keen to see this suggestion taken forward.

 

Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

In a Press Release dated September 12, 2011, the Coalition4ME/CFS, which comprises a number of US 501 (c)(3) registered ME and CFS organizations, announced that the Coalition had submitted a representation to NCHS in July.

The Coalition had set out its proposals and a rationale in a 48 page letter dated July 14 and had been successful in getting the issue of the proposed coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM placed on the agenda for the September 14 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee. 

Mary Dimmock and Marly Silverman attended the September meeting and presented the Coalition’s proposal and rationale to the NCHS. The NCHS presented an alternative suggestion to the current proposal for the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM on which stakeholders may also wish to submit comment.

The Coalition4ME/CFS’s materials can be found here:

 

http://coalition4mecfs.org/ICDPR.html

There are a quite a number of background documents on the Coalition’s site and you may want to start with the Coalition’s Summary and Overview document.

You’ll also find the Coalition’s Press Release, ICD FAQ, Coalition Proposal, ICD Presentation (PPT), ME-ICC Update, ICD Meeting Update, IACFS Conference info and an ICD Sample Letter (a template for submitting comment to NCHS in support of the Coalition’s proposals).

 

What is the Coalition4ME/CFS proposing?

The Coalition proposes that for ICD-10-CM, Chronic fatigue syndrome (currently coded as “Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS”) should be deleted from Chapter 18: R53.82 Malaise and fatigue and instead, classified within Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system under the parent class G93 Other diseases of brain, under the Title term G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome, under which code Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is proposed to be classified.

• This would bring the US specific ICD-10-CM in line with international ICD-10 (in which CFS is indexed to G93.3) and ICD-10-CA (Canada), where all three terms are classsified within the ICD-10-CA Tabular List under G93.3.

• This would reflect the CFSAC Committee’s Recommendation to HHS of May 2011 which had prompted the Coalition’s initiative.

• This would bring ICD-10-CM in line with ICD-11, for which it is proposed that all three terms are classified in Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system.

I shall be setting out the various proposals in a forthcoming post.

 

September 14 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting

The CDC webpage for the development of ICD-10-CM is here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm

The 2011 release for the draft ICD-10-CM is available from the page above under this section of the page. Note that although this release of ICD-10-CM is available for public viewing, the codes in ICD-10-CM are not currently valid for any purpose or use. The most recent update to the draft, the “2011 release of ICD-10-CM” replaces the December 2010 release.

The CDC webpage for the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee remit, meeting schedules and meeting documentation is here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm_maintenance.htm

The ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee is a Federal Committee; suggestions for new inclusions to ICD-9-CM and modifications to proposals for the forthcoming ICD-10-CM come from both the public and private sectors.  Interested parties and stakeholders are required to submit proposals for modification prior to a scheduled meeting.

These twice yearly meetings are held as public fora to discuss proposed modifications to ICD-9-CM and proposals for ICD-10-CM and a number of proposals and modifications around other diseases and disorders had been tabled for discussion on September 14, in addition to the issue of the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM.

Meeting presentation

Mary Dimmock (who prepared the proposal) and Marly Silverman (PANDORA founder and Coalition4ME/CFS steering committee member) presented on behalf of the Coalition at the NCHS’s September 14 meeting.

At the meeting, the NCHS had presented an alternative suggestion to the current proposal for the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM which suggested coding (B) ME and CFS under two separate sub codes (G93.31 and G93.32) under a revised G93.3 parent “G93.3 Postviral and other chronic fatigue syndromes” (a not entirely satisfactory suggestion that I shall set out in full in a forthcoming post). I shall be posting extracts from the two NCHS meeting Proposals and Summary documents where they relate to the issue of the coding of CFS in the next post, and you can download the entire documents from the links below.

 
You can download an Audio of the September 14 NCHS meeting here: http://www.cms.gov/ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/Downloads/091411_Meeting_Audio.zip

[Note this is a large Zipped file.  The section for discussions on CFS coding starts at 2 hours 27 minutes in from start and ends at 3 hours 02 minutes.]

The NCHS Committee’s Summary of the proceedings of this meeting can be downloaded here: Summary September 14, 2011. See Page 2.

The CDC site says, “Note: This document was re-posted, changes are on page 2, bullet 2, bolded.  If you downloaded the previous document you will need to download this updated document.”

The NCHS Committee’s Proposals document is here:  Proposals September 14, 2011. See Pages 10-11.

The CDC site says, “Note: This document was re-posted, if you downloaded the previous document you will need to download this updated document.”

 

What’s the deadline for comments and where do I send them?

The closing date for submitting comments to NCHS on the proposals is Friday, November 18.

Comments from stakeholders, preferably via email, should be submitted to:

Donna Pickett RHIA, MPH
Medical Classification Administrator
National Center for Health Statistics – CDC
3311Toledo Road Hyattsville, MD 20782
Via email: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

 

Coming up…

In upcoming posts I’ll be setting out the various proposals and the NCHS’s suggestion, for ease of comparison, and a posting by Mary Schweitzer around ICD-10-CM.

 

Footnotes and related postings:

1] Minutes of May 10-11 2011 CFSAC meeting (Extract: Discussion of concerns re coding of CFS for ICD-10-CM)

2]  A Summary of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Its Classification in the International Classification of Diseases CDC, 2001.

3] CFS orphaned in the “R” codes in US specific ICD-10-CM

4] Forthcoming US “Clinical Modification” ICD-10-CM (starts half way down page)

5] I have written to the CDC’s, Donna Pickett, to request that consideration is given to posting stand alone PDFs of the draft Tabular List and Index. (At the moment, these two documents require extraction or opening in situ from a 14 MB Zipped file which contains five PDFs, which include the ICD-10-CM Tabular List and the Alphabetical Index.)

To view or download the Tabular List and Alphabetical Index for the 2011 release of ICD-10-CM:

Go to: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm#10update

Heading: ICD-10-CM Files – 2011 release

Click on: ICD-10-CM PDF Format for which the URL is

ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Publications/ICD10CM/2011/

Open or save this directory file:

12/20/2010 08:40AM    14,131,267    icd10_cm_pdf.zip

contains 5 PDF files, which include the Tabular List (7.8 MB) and the Alphabetical Index (4.7 MB) which can be viewed in situ or saved to hard drive.

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CFSAC meetings, Clinical Modification, Coalition4ME/CFS, DSM revision process, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre

ICD-11 Alpha Drafting platform launched 17 May (public version)

May 19, 2011 by

ICD-11 Alpha Drafting platform launched 17 May (public version)

Post #81 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-16N

This information does not apply to the forthcoming US specific “Clinical Modification” of ICD-10, called ICD-10-CM, scheduled for implementation in October 2013.

Changes to Alpha Draft since May 17, 2011:

May 19 – 11:02 UTC : Code/sorting label assigned to Parent class “Other disorders of the nervous system” changed from 06N to 06L.

Screenshot from ICD11 Alpha  May 17 – 11.02 UTC    Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system: Foundation Tab selected

ICD11 Alpha Chapter 6

    »  http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_G93_3_3

Screenshot from ICD11 Alpha  May 19 – 11.02 UTC    Chapter 6: Linearizations Tab > Morbidity selected

    »  http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_G93_3_3

 

Four new pages were published on the WHO’s main website on 17 May – the revised Timeline for ICD-11, the announcement of an Alpha Draft browser, a Registration form and a Caveat. Yesterday, I posted the revised ICD-11 Revision Timeline.

What can be seen for PVFS, (B)ME and CFS in the public Alpha Draft?

For the Alpha browser, go to this page:

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/index.html

Here it states:

The International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision is due by 2015

ICD is the international standard to measure health & health services

• Mortality statistics
• Morbidity statistics
• Health care costs
• Progress towards the Millenium Development Goals
• Research

– Alpha draft is updated daily as the work progresses
– It is intended to show the new features to stakeholders early
– Commenting will be available in July 2011

The link for the alpha browser is:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en

This is the link to a page for “Caveats”

“Read more on what to expect in the ICD-11 Alpha Draft”

ICD-11 Alpha Draft Caveats

ICD-11 alpha draft is:

• Incomplete
• May contain errors, omissions or imperfections
• The work in different chapters are at different stages
• The alpha drafting work is going on by the WHO, Revision Steering Group and Topic Advisory Groups
• The alpha draft is going to be updated on a daily basis
• The alpha draft is NOT TO BE USED for CODING at this stage
• The alpha draft has not yet been approved by the Topic Advisory Groups, Revision Steering Group or WHO

Click here to access the public Alpha Draft browser

Poke around and open the Parent and Child categories and the Tabs – you cannot edit or break anything.

This new interface is not as detailed or as easy to navigate as the software version of the iCAT collaborative drafting platform that was in the public domain up until November, last year. Less information is visible, for example, some of the paramenter tabs, including “Definitions”. (Compare with what could be seen in this iCAT screenshot from last June.)

This is a public draft and another platform is being used by ICD Revision for ongoing drafting. The public draft will be updated as the work of the various Topic Advisory Groups and working groups progresses. ICD Revision has not reached its targets for the generation of content and population of “Content Model” fields across all chapters and this draft is not as far forward as ICD Revision had projected for a May 2011 release.

Though viewable now, the Alpha drafting browser is not planned to be open for public comment until July, this year. It’s not yet clear which classes of public stakeholder will be able to participate in the drafting process, come July, or to what extent.

If you are interested in the proposed public comment, interaction and input processes for the Alpha and Beta drafting stages, see this DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch post for meeting presentation slides.

Summary

First a caveat: It had been anticipated that a Beta drafting platform would be released in May, this year. WHO has cited lack of content and underdeveloped software for delaying the launch of a Beta drafting platform.

This public version of an Alpha drafting platform is a “work in progress”; not all disease and disorder categories may have been entered into the draft and proposed textual content is in the process of being authored and reviewed by the various Topic Advisory Groups, ICD Revision Steering Group and external peer reviewers.

From what can be seen, today, 19 May:

06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome

is proposed to be coded within Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system (the Neurology chapter), as an ICD Title category, under the Parent class, 06L Other disorders of the nervous system.

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is specified as an Inclusion to 06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome.

“Causal mechanisms” for 06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome are cited as “Virus (organism)”.

The relationship between ICD Title category 06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome and Inclusion term Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is not yet specified, ie whether for ICD-11, “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” is proposed to be specified as a Synonym , Subclass or other relationship to “06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome”.

Many categories within the draft are waiting for their Inclusion terms to be specified, not just the three terms of interest to us.

For explanation of Inclusions and other “Content Model” parameter terms, see: iCAT Glossary or the key ICD-11 Content Model document.

6 Inclusions

Details: Inclusion terms appear in the tabular list [Ed: ICD Volume 1] of the traditional print version and show users that entities are included in the relevant concept. All of the ICD-10 inclusion terms have been imported and accessible in the iCat. These are either synonyms of the category titles or subclasses which are not represented in the classification hierarchy. Since we have synonyms as a separate entity in our ICD-11 content model, the new synonyms suggested by the users should go into the synonyms section. In the future, iCat will provide a mechanism to identify whether an inclusion is a synonym or a subclass.”

 

What is the proposed relationship between PVFS and CFS?

Postviral fatigue syndrome is not accounted for in the “Foundations” or “Linearizations > Morbidity” listings.

In ICD-10, Postviral fatigue syndrome is an ICD Title category under G93 Other disorders of brain. I cannot confirm, but it may be that due to the hierarchy  change, “Postviral fatigue syndrome” is proposed to be subsumed under “06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome” with “06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome” becoming the ICD Title category, because “G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome” has lost its ICD-10 Parent category.

At the moment, there is not sufficient information displaying to determine what the intention is. Last June, I requested a clarification from Dr Raad Shakir, chair of Topic Advisory Group for Neurology, but no clarification has been forthcoming.

In the iCAT initial drafting platform, last November, where “Postviral fatigue syndrome” was referenced within a “Category Note” and specified as an Exclusion to Chapter 5 and Chapter 18,  it was referenced as:

“G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome -> Gj92 Chronic fatigue syndrome”

[“Note: Gj92” is a “Sorting label” assigned for the initial Alpha drafting process, not an eventual ICD-11 code.]

 

“Change history” note from May 2010

In ICD-10, “Postviral fatigue syndrome” is a Title code at G93.3 under Parent category “G93 Other disorders of brain”. “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” sits under “G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome” (relationship unspecified).

As previously reported, an iCAT “Change history” note, dated 1 May 2010, records a “Change in hierarchy for class: G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome because its parent category (G93 Other disorders of brain) is removed.”

This would leaves the existing ICD-10 G93.3 Title category, “Postviral fatigue syndrome” and “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” that sits beneath it, and also the G93.3 index entry for Chronic fatigue syndrome with no parent category.

Note that the removal of the parent “G93 Other disorders of brain” affects many other categories also classified under G93 in ICD-10 which have also been assigned new parents under the reorganization of Chapter 6 (VI).

Screenshot of “Change history” Note from May 2010

 

Exclusions

No Exclusions have been specified yet for “06L00 Chronic fatigue syndrome”.

“Postviral fatigue syndrome” is specified as an Exclusion to the following ICD-11 chapters:

Chapter 5 “05E06 Other neurotic disorders > 05E06.00 Neurasthenia”
Chapter 18 “18GF General symptoms and signs > 18F03 Malaise and fatigue.”

(Chapter 18 is the “R code” chapter of ICD-10; ICD-10-CM proposes to retain CFS under R53 Malaise and fatigue at R53.82 Chronic fatigue, unspecified, as “Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS”, with the Exclusion: Postviral fatigue syndrome G93.3.)

Go here for ICD-11 Chapter 5 “Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders” > Somatoform Disorders:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_F40-F48

Go here for ICD-11 Chapter 18 “Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified”:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/@_@who_3_int_1_icd_2_XVIII

 

Congruency with DSM-5 proposals for revision of DSM-IV “Somatoform Disorders”

There is no obvious mirroring of the radical proposals currently being put forward by the DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group to rename “Somatoform Disorders” to “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and combine a number of existing somatoform categories under a new rubric, “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder”.

 

Registering for involvement

There is a Registration form here

This form appears to be aimed at recruiting medical health professionals for putting their names down to be contacted at some point to “Make comments; Make proposals to change ICD categories; Participate in field trials; Assist in translating“. It’s not clear whether or at what point in the Alpha/Beta drafting processes involvement might be extended to non professional stakeholders.

Register to become involved

ICD-11 Registration

“WHO wants to know if you are interested in being involved in the ICD Revision. We will contact you as certain features are opened to the public.”

[Fields are: Family name*; First name*; Email address*; Organization or Company*; LinkedIn ID; Are you a health care professional?* Yes/No. Continue…]   *Required fields

 

Related information

1] ICD11 Alpha browser

2] ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and PowerPoint slide presentations

3] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

4] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

Filed under ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, ICD-11 Beta Draft, ICD-11 consultation, ICD-11 revision docs, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders, WHO (World Health Organization)

ICD Revision: WHO announces revised Timeline for ICD-11

May 18, 2011 by

ICD Revision: WHO announces revised Timeline for ICD-11

Post #79 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-16e

The information in this report relates only to ICD-11, the forthcoming revision of ICD-10 that is scheduled for completion and pilot implementation in 2014/15. It does not apply to the forthcoming US specific Clinical Modification of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

The following has been published on the WHO’s website in the last couple of days. Note that the original timeline had scheduled presentation to the WHA (World Health Assembly) in May 2014, for pilot implementation of ICD-11 in 2014. This most recent timeline for ICD-11 Revision suggests that implementation is being postponed until 2015+.

A WHO news release (if issued) and details on how to access the drafting platform, will be posted as more information becomes available.

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/timeline/en/

ICD Revision Timelines

May 2011

Open ICD-11 Alpha Browser to the public for viewing

July 2011

Open ICD-11 Alpha Browser to the public for commenting

May 2012

Open ICD-11 Beta to the public

ICD-11 Beta Information
WHO will engage with individuals from an outside community to participate in the ICD revision process.

Individuals will be allowed to:

• Make comments
• Make proposals to change ICD categories
• Participate in field trials
• Assist in translating

May 2015
Present the ICD-11 to the World Health Assembly 

Related information:

Alpha and Beta drafting process:

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and PowerPoint slide presentations, April 19, 2011: http://wp.me/pKrrB-10i

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting 11 – 14 April 2011: The Way Forward? April 19: 2011: http://wp.me/pKrrB-ZN

 

Key documents and references:

1] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

2] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), iCAT, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, ICD-11 Beta Draft, ICD-11 consultation, ICD-11 revision docs, WHO (World Health Organization)

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting presentations

April 19, 2011 by

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and PowerPoint slide presentations

Post #71 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-10i

The information in this mailing relates only to ICD-11, the forthcoming revision of ICD-10 that is scheduled for completion and pilot implementation in 2014/15. It does not apply to the forthcoming US specific Clinical Modification of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting

An ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting was held, last week, in Geneva. See this post on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site for more information and commentary: http://wp.me/pKrrB-ZN

The Agenda for the meeting can be read here: ICD11 April 2011 Meeting Agenda Word .docx

Following this meeting, it is anticipated that ICD Revision Steering Group may make a public announcement within the next few weeks of how it intends to proceed in light of the fact that the timeline for transition from the Alpha to Beta drafting phases has slipped.

The meeting Agenda and PowerPoint slides suggest that ICD Revision is working towards making a version of the drafting platform publicly available around 16 May, this year, but that this may be a compromise on previous plans and possibly a “hybrid” between the Alpha and Beta drafting phases.

Earlier timelines had approval by World Health Assembly (WHA) slated for May 2014, with pilot implementation of ICD-11 in March 2014. One presentation slide now suggests approval by WHA in 2015.

It’s unconfirmed, but if this is the case, WHO may have already decided to shift WHA endorsement and dissemination of ICD-11 by 12 months, to 2015. This would mean that DSM-5 would have been put to bed and published two years prior to ICD-11 implementation.

From the meeting Agenda:

“Future Phases:

a. iCAT continued alpha development and evaluation ( 2010-11)

b. iCAT beta phase ( 2012-2015)

c. iCAT continuous maintenance phase ( 2015+)”

In November, last year, the iCAT collaborative authoring platform through which ICD-11 is being drafted was taken out of the public domain. A revised version of the software on which the platform runs is currently sitting on a Standford server, behind a password, accessible only to ICD Revision. This, or a similar version, may be made publicly accessible (or accessible to those who register for access) from mid May.

There has been discussion is earlier ICD Revision documents of a hierarchy of stakeholder input – but there is nothing much on this in the meeting presentations, for which ICD Revision has published only slides – not transcripts.

Coming up on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch:

ICD-11 proposals for PVFS, ME and Chronic fatigue syndrome

Until some form of Alpha/Beta transition drafting platform is back in the public domain, it won’t be evident how much further forward the population of content for Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system has progressed since last November. As more information becomes available, I will update, and I will be posting a summary of how things stood in the iCAT last November, in Post #72.

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting presentations

There are five presentations published for this meeting: the following three may be of interest to those following the development of ICD-11:

(The 2007 MS PowerPoint viewer is required to view PowerPoint presentations which have been created in .pptx format. A MS .pptx viewer can be downloaded for free from the Microsoft site.)

Open full PowerPoint Presentation:”The Way Forward Questions Options” [.ppt]: TheWayForwardPP

Selected slides from “The Way Forward Questions Options”

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 12

Slide 17

Open full PowerPoint Presentation:”The Way Forward Questions Options” [.pptx]: TheWayForwardPP

——————

Open full PowerPoint Presentation: “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform, Stanford team” [.ppt]: iCATBetaStanford[1]

Selected slides from “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform, Stanford team”

Slide 5

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 51

Open full PowerPoint Presentation: “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform, Stanford team” [.ppt]: iCATBetaStanford[1]

——————

Open full Can Celik PowerPoint Presentation: “Public Tooling” [.pptx]: Ppt0000069 CanCelic 

Selected slides from Can Celik’s PowerPoint Presentation: “Public Tooling”

Slide 4

Slide 7

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Open full Can Celik PowerPoint Presentation: “Public Tooling” [.pptx]: Ppt0000069 CanCelic 
 

Key documents and references:

1] ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting Agenda and background documents

2] Report, WHO FIC Council conference call, 16 February 2011, PDF format

3] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

4] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

5] PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform (DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch report with screenshots from the iCAT): http://wp.me/pKrrB-KK

Filed under DSM revision process, iCAT, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, ICD-11 Beta Draft, ICD-11 consultation, ICD-11 revision docs, WHO (World Health Organization)

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting 11-14 April: The Way Forward?

April 19, 2011 by

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting 11 – 14 April 2011: The Way Forward?

Post #70 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-ZN

The information in this mailing relates only to ICD-11, the revision of ICD-10 scheduled for completion and pilot implementation in 2014/15. It does not apply to the forthcoming US specific “Clinical Modification” of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

The Way Forward?

ICD-11 Revision maintains a website on a Google platform where key documents, agendas for iCAMP and workgroup meetings, background documents and presentations can be viewed and downloaded. Minutes or summaries of meetings aren’t usually posted publicly:

ICD-11 Revision: http://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/home

An ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting was held in Geneva, last week, between 11-14 April, for discussing the status of the revision of ICD-10 and development of ICD-11, for both content and software development, and reviewing the ICD revision “Roadmap” and Timeline.

A copy of the Meeting Agenda can be downloaded from the ICD-11 Revision site here or opened on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site here: ICD11 April 11 Meeting Agenda. There are some interesting comments in the Agenda Appendix on project funding, lack of resources, project management and lines of communication.

There are five PowerPoint presentations available to download from this page.

If you are interested in the ICD Revision process, in general, then I suggest visiting the site and viewing or downloading the following three presentations – these are slides only, with no notes or transcripts.

(The 2007 MS PowerPoint viewer is required to view presentations that have been created in .pptx format. A .pptx viewer can be downloaded free from the Microsoft site.)

.ppt file: The Way Forward

.pptx file: Can Celik’s Presentation: Public Tooling

.pptx file: Stanford’s Presentation: iCAT Beta

These three presentations can also be opened in the next post on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site and selected slides have been posted here:

Post #71: ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and presentations

 

“Community engagement”

In mid 2009, ICD Revision launched a number of platforms as channels of communication with the public and maintains a YouTube Channel, Facebook site, Twitter and blog. The ICD-11 blog has not been updated since October 2009 and queries left on the Facebook site by members of the public may take several months before a response is provided or may receive no response, at all.

The YouTube videos made to accompany various Geneva meetings can also be accessed on the ICD Revision YouTube page of my site. The two most recent videos give an overview of the iCAT drafting process and the extent of the ICD-11 “Content Model” – the 13 parameters through which ICD-11 categories can be described.

 

Visibility of iCAT drafting platforms

Following last week’s ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting, it is anticipated that ICD Revision may make a public announcement, within the next few weeks, clarifying how it intends to proceed in light of the fact that the timeline for the Beta drafting phase is slipping.

The meeting Agenda and PowerPoint slides suggest that ICD Revision is working towards making a version of the drafting platform publicly available around 16 May, this year, but that this may represent a compromise on previous plans and may be a “hybrid” between the Alpha and Beta drafting phases.

From the Agenda:

“Future Phases:

a. iCAT continued alpha development and evaluation ( 2010-11)

b. iCAT beta phase ( 2012-2015)

c. iCAT continuous maintenance phase ( 2015+)”

Earlier timelines had projected endorsement by the World Health Assembly (WHA) and pilot implementation of ICD-11 in the spring of 2014. But one presentation slide suggests approval by WHA in 2015.

It’s unconfirmed, but if the “Milestones” timeline has been revised to accommodate a later release of a Beta drafting phase platform and later publication of a Beta Draft, then WHO may have already decided to shift the pilot implementation date for ICD-11 by 12 months, to 2015.

That would mean that by the time ICD-11 is ready for dissemination, the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 would have already been put to bed and out in print two years prior to ICD-11 implementation.

It is intended that for ICD-11, all three volumes will be electronically published and capable of continuous updating in response to scientific developments (unlike ICD-10 where there are annual updates); there will also be electronic translations and print editions. The three volumes of ICD-11 are intended to be integrable with each other and also with some other classification systems. 

The drafting platforms are based on Web 2.0 applications and it is proposed that there will be stakeholder and end user participation in the Beta drafting phase.

The IT work and software development for the various alpha and beta drafting platforms and final product platforms is enormously complex; there is also the potential for far more textual content in ICD-11 than there was in ICD-10 and overall, this revision project represents a huge undertaking by an under-resourced organization.

 

The ICD-11 Alpha/Beta drafting process

Topic Advisory Group (TAG) Managing Editors overseeing the revision of the various chapters of ICD-10 have responsibility for recruiting external experts, via networking. The function of the external experts is to peer review proposals being made by TAG members or submitted by external professional bodies and institutions and to review or assist with the generation of textual content.

[In late 2009, I approached the WHO’s Dr Robert Jakob to enquire whether and at what stage the names of external peer reviewers would be identified in the drafting platforms, as visible to the public. I also asked whether the reviewing of proposals as they progressed through the Workflow review system would be a transparent process that could be monitored by the public. Neither query produced a response from Dr Jakob.]

So there are many lines of communication to be maintained between WHO classification experts, IT consultants and technicians, Revision Steering Group members, TAG Managing Editors, TAG members and external experts. There is an ICD-11 Collaborative Authoring Workflow chart here: workflow-2.

At the Beta drafting stage, the proposal is that TAG Managing Editors will continue to recruit external peer reviewers to assist workgoups with reviewing of categories, proposals and generation of content, but that versions of the Beta drafting platform would be opened up to the public for viewing, and interested stakeholders would be able to register for limited input and interaction.

Stakeholders (or preferably, communities of stakeholders) would not have editing rights, per se, but the proposal is that they would comment on proposals, “score” proposals and make evidence-based suggestions which the TAG groups would then consider for approval, which would then be incorporated into the draft or rejected.  There has also been discussion of a “hierarchy” of levels of input according to professional status of stakeholders. How ICD Revision plans to verify the credentials of professionals isn’t clear, nor is it defined what would consitute a stakeholder “community”.

No static Beta Draft for public review and comment

Rather than release a static Beta draft for professional and public scrutiny in a feedback exercise for a pre-determined review period (as DSM-5 has already done and is scheduled to do again in August-September), the proposal appears to be for longer term feedback during an alpha/beta transition drafting phase on dynamic content that would be continuously updated, for example, on a four weekly cycle, to reflect the progress being made by the various Topic Advisory Groups in entering proposals for changes and populatation of textual content, and in response to external input.

So managing editors and members of the Topic Advisory Groups (mostly international clinicians and researchers juggling this work on top of their “day jobs”) are faced with maintaining lines of communication, largely via electronic means, between workgroup chairs, fellow workgroup members, external peer reviewers and WHO classification experts whilst also considering input from professional bodies, and working in the background on the drafting platform, while stakeholders are commenting and feeding suggestions into the process via the public versions of the drafting platforms. 

[Some organizations and professional bodies have been compiling and submitting proposals via an ICD Revision Proposal Form, since late 2009. There is no publicly available list of which institutions and bodies have been invited to submit proposals, which have responded, or where their submissions for changes to ICD-10 can be scrutinised, but copies of these submissions occasionally turn up online, having been published in the organs of these organizations.]

Selected slides from “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform, Stanford team”:

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 45

Slide 46

 

“…who will do all this work?”

Presentations and video clips of the WHO’s Dr. Bedirhan Üstün suggest a man buzzed up on information and internet technology: “cloud sourcing”, portals, public commenting and “scoring” of proposals, wikis, blogs,  internal and public “user communities”, drawing in the involvement of “Wikipedians” and other existing “editing communities” (one questions whether Dr Üstün has any experience of how Wikipedia functions and the problems inherent with some Wikipedia admins and editors, particularly in relation to editing of controversial scientific and medical areas), message boards, Facebook integration, “community engagement”…

But as the closing slide of one of last week’s presentations ruefully comments, “And just a small detail: who will do all this work?” [6]

ICD Revision and its IT and informatics advisors seem eager to use these internet applications because they exist, without having given due consideration to whether the WHO can fund, manage and sustain this level of public participation and interaction or whether this is the best way to approach the revision of the ICD.

How does ICD Revision intend to finance and recruit the personnel needed to manage the opening up of the drafting process to multiple platforms for stakeholder participation, given WHO’s limited resources when already, no-one can evidently be spared to even keep the ICD-11 blog updated or to respond to queries that members of the public have posted on ICD Revision’s existing public platforms and where Topic Advisory Group Chairs approached for brief clarifications are not always providing a response nine months down the line?

Who is going to pull this most ambitious project back down to earth?

Insufficient funding allocated and no Project Manager

From the Appendix to the April meeting Agenda:

“TAGs were supposed to be self-financed.  The TAG chair was supposed to have funding to carry out their revision work.”

“As this is a core WHO activity, we should have regular budget funds for this project.  The scale of this project is too big not to have funding for a project manager.”

“Additionally, ALL relevant WHO departments should have designated some financial and some human resources to this project as part of the collaborative effort.”

“…communication between the TAGs is growing, and it is beginning to become overwhelming in addition to clinical responsibilities.”

 

ICD-11 proposals for PVFS, ME and Chronic fatigue syndrome

Until some form of Alpha/Beta transition drafting platform is back in the public domain, it won’t be evident how much further forward the population of content for Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system has progressed since last November. As more information becomes available, I will update, and I will be posting a summary of how things stood in the iCAT last November in Post #72.

The meeting Agenda, selected slides and three of the PowerPoint presentations can be viewed/opened from Post #71, on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site, here:

ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting documents and presentations

 

Key documents and related posts:

1] ICD Revision Process Alpha Evaluation Meeting Agenda and background documents

2] Report, WHO FIC Council conference call, 16 February 2011, PDF format

3] Key document: ICD Revision Project Plan version 2.1 9 July 2010

4] Key document: Content Model Reference Guide version January 2011

5] PVFS, ME, CFS: the ICD-11 Alpha Draft and iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform (DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch report with screenshots from the iCAT): http://wp.me/pKrrB-KK

6] Closing remarks, PowerPoint presentation: “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform”, Stanford team, 12.04.11, WHO, Geneva.

Filed under iCAT, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, ICD-11 Beta Draft, ICD-11 consultation, ICD-11 in the media, ICD-11 revision docs, WHO (World Health Organization)

← Older posts

Newer posts →