World Health Assembly adopts ICD-11: When will member states start using the new edition?

Post #354 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4Sm

On May 25, 2019, the 72nd World Health Assembly voted unanimously to adopt the ICD-11, the next edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

Endorsement won’t come into effect until January 1, 2022, which is the earliest date that member states can begin using ICD-11 for reporting data.

A stable version of the ICD-11 MMS was released in June 2018 to enable member states to begin planning for implementation. This release was replaced in April 2019 with ICD-11 MMS Version: 04/2019.

ICD-11 is an electronic classification containing over 55,000 codes and a considerably more complex product than ICD-10. It has been designed to incorporate or link with other ICD classifications, such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), the WONCA* developed International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC), and with the SNOMED-CT and OrphaNet terminologies.

Even the earliest implementers will need several years to evaluate the new edition, determine how they will use ICD-11, complete translations, produce training and implementation materials and prepare their health systems for migration. Japan is understood to be well advanced with translations and planning.

There is no mandatory implementation date: member states will migrate to ICD-11 at their own pace and according to their countries’ needs and resources but there is an expectation that countries will start planning for transition. Some member states may need to develop clinical modifications of ICD-11 for country specific use. A few countries still use ICD-9.

Global implementation of the new edition will be a patchy and prolonged process and during the transition period, WHO will be accepting data reported using both ICD-10 and the new ICD-11 code sets until the majority of member states have transitioned to the new edition. WHO has said that the last update to ICD-10 will be Version 2019.

No member states have announced timeline projections but below is a round-up of ICD-11 transition planning activities already in progress:

*World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians.

 

NHS England

NHS England mandates the use of ICD-10 in secondary care (currently using ICD-10 Version 2015).

As a WHO Collaborating Centre and designated UK Field Trial Centre, NHS Digital has taken part in ICD-11 Field Trials.

NHS Digital has said:

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.

NHS Digital Delen: ICD-11 resources page

Proposed Future Additions

Over the coming months, NHS Digital would like to engage and invite all users of ICD to participate and interact with the review process.

To support this, we are proposing to add the following information to our Delen site;

  • A mechanism for questions, issues, concerns and errors relating to ICD-11 to be raised to us as the UK Field Trial Centre.
  • A high-level overview of our future plans
  • Presentations providing more information on ICD-11
  • e-Learning materials to support familiarisation with ICD-11. Topics to include post coordination / cluster coding, chapter and code structure, chapter specific changes and notes, conventions etc
  • Further testing – parallel coding in ICD-10 in real-time. If you would be interested in taking part in this please let us know by emailing icd-11@nhs.net

Until NHS England has implemented ICD-11, the mandatory classification system for use in the NHS remains ICD-10.

Since April 2018, SNOMED CT (which replaces the Read Codes/CTV3 clinical terminology) has been the mandatory terminology system for use in NHS primary care at the point of contact and forms an integral part of the electronic patient record (EPR).

SNOMED CT terminology system is already used in some secondary care settings but is planned to be implemented across all secondary care, acute care, mental health, community systems, dentistry and other systems used in direct patient care by April 2020.

SNOMED CT terminology system and clinical classifications, like ICD-10, work together to fulfil different needs:

Source: Presentation: NHS Digital: Clinical Coding for non coders – Overview of clinical coding, how ICD-10 and SNOMED CT work together, and the role of the Clinical Classifications Service.

For more information on the planning that will be required before ICD-11 can be implemented within the NHS, see BETA – Clinical Information Standards, section: ICD-11 and the new Procedure Based Classification (PBC).

Resources:

NHS Digital Delen Home Page

NHS Digital SNOMED CT resources

SNOMED CT UK Edition browser

 

Australia

Australia uses a modification of the WHO’s ICD-10, known as ICD-10-AM [1].

Australian classification standards and statistics agencies were well represented on the ICD-11 Joint Task Force, with 5 of the Joint Task Force’s 21 members representing Australia, plus co-chair (Dr James Harrison, Director, Research Centre for Injury Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide) and observer (Dr Richard Madden, Professor of Health Statistics and Director National Centre for Classification in Health, University of Sydney).

For comparison, the UK had only an observer on the Joint Task Force; the U.S. had 4 participants and an observer.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) has been conducting a review of ICD-11 to inform and assist decision-makers about the new edition and its potential for adoption in Australia, see Post: #349: Australia: Potential adoption of ICD-11: Pre-consultation for decision makers.

1 Australian Consortium for Classification Development

 

Canada

Canada uses a modification of the WHO’s ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CA, developed by Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) [1].

CIHI is participating in the testing of ICD-11 and assessing the implications for potential implementation in Canada.

CIHI has said that no decision has been made for the implementation of ICD-11 in Canada and that they are currently working on a number of initiatives to better understand the differences between ICD-10-CA and ICD-11 to help inform the business and statistical implications of adoption.

April 15, 2019 webinar:

https://www.cihi.ca/en/submit-data-and-view-standards/codes-and-classifications/icd-11

https://www.cihi.ca/fr/normes-et-soumission-de-donnees/codification-et-classification/cim-11

Introduction to ICD-11 — Part 1 Transcript and Recording

https://www.cihi.ca/en/bulletin/webinar-introduction-to-icd-11-part-1

https://www.cihi.ca/fr/bulletin/webinaire-introduction-a-la-cim-11-partie-1

Introduction to ICD-11 — Part 2 Transcript and Recording

https://www.cihi.ca/en/bulletin/webinar-introduction-to-icd-11-part-2

https://www.cihi.ca/fr/bulletin/webinaire-introduction-a-la-cim-11-partie-2

 

1 Version 2018 ICD-10-CA/CCI, Canadian Coding Standards and related products

 

United States

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is the federal agency responsible for the use of ICD-10 in the United States.

ICD-10 has been used in the U.S. to code and classify mortality data from death certificates since January 1999. NCHS developed a clinical modification of ICD-10 for morbidity purposes (ICD-10-CM) which replaced ICD-9-CM on October 1, 2015.

Since its initial launch, in 2007, the U.S. has maintained high level participation in the ICD-11 development process and its ongoing update and improvement:

The U.S. provided representatives from professional and scientific organisations, academics and practitioners for the ICD-11 Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs) and sub working groups. Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research developed the web based iCAT Collaborative Authoring Platform on which ICD-11 was developed.

The U.S. has representatives on the ICD-11 governance committees via the WHO-FIC Network; the Medical Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC); the Classifications and Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC); the Mortality and Morbidity (MbRF) Reference Groups; and the Functioning and Disability Reference Group, which have oversight for the annual updating and ongoing improvement of the global ICD-11 edition.

Dr Geoffrey Reed (WHO, Geneva; Columbia University) is Senior Project Lead for the ICD-11 Mental Health chapter and a member of the MSAC; Steven Hyman, MD (former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and former DSM-5 Task Force member) chaired the Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health; Michael B First, MD has served as a key external advisor to the Mental Health chapter. Harold Pincus, MD co-chaired the ICD-11 Quality and Patient Safety Topic Advisory Group.

Dr Christopher Chute (John Hopkins University) chaired the ICD-11 Revision Steering Committee, was a member of the Joint Task Force and now co-chairs the MSAC; Donna Pickett (Chief, Classifications and Public Health Data Standards, NCHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Head, Collaborating Center for the WHO-FIC in North America) co-chaired the Morbidity TAG, was a member of the Joint Task Force and is a member of the CSAC; Dr Robert Anderson (Chief, Mortality Statistics Branch Division of Vital Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) was a member of the Joint Task Force and co-chaired the Mortality TAG; Cille Kennedy (ASPE) co-chaired the ICD-11 Functioning TAG; Sue Bowman (Senior Director of Coding Policy and Compliance, AHIMA) is a representative on the ICD-11 Morbidity Reference Group (MbRF).

Around 25 member states have modified ICD-10 for country specific use.

WHO is still formulating policies around the licensing of ICD-11 but it is understood that the intention is to limit development of national modifications.

See Presentation slides #36-38 for more information on licensing and the development of country modifications: Insights into the Next Revision: Like Texas, Everything is Bigger in ICD-11, Kathy Giannangelo, RHIA, CCS, CPHIMS, FHIMA, Texas Health Information Management Association.

It would be premature to speculate when the U.S. might be ready to migrate to ICD-11 for mortality (cause of death reporting) and whether ICD-11 will be adequate as a morbidity classification system for U.S. use or whether NCHS will need to develop a clinical modification, as it did for ICD-10.

It was put forward at the June 5-6, 2019 NCVHS meeting that the U.S. might potentially use ICD-11 unmodified if WHO were to incorporate some additional terms within the global ICD-11 edition.

NCVHS has initiated the process of planning for transition to ICD-11 at the federal level.

In February 2019, William W Stead, MD, Chair, NCVHS, sent a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommending a simplified process for adopting future versions of ICD. The letter also recommended that HHS should invest now in an ICD-11 evaluation project and develop a plan to enable a smooth, transparent transition from ICD-10 to ICD-11 at the optimal time.

 

NCVHS meetings:

The U.S. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) serves as the statutory public advisory body to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for health data, statistics, privacy, and national health information policy and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

A National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics Full Committee Meeting was held on June 5-6, 2019.

Agenda: Full Committee Meeting-June 5-6, 2019

Presentations were given for Agenda item: ICD-11 Project:

Recording Mp3: Full Committee Meeting – Day 1 June 5, 2019

Agenda item: ICD-11 Project: presentations and discussions starts 2hrs: 50 mins in from start; closes 5hrs 55mins from start.

Recording Mp3: Full Committee Meeting – Day 2 June 6, 2019

Meeting summaries, transcripts, presentation slides may be available later.

 

ICD-11 Expert Roundtable Meeting August 6-7, 2019

National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics Subcommittee on Standards held an

ICD-11 Evaluation Expert Roundtable Meeting on August 6-7, 2019.

Mp3 recordings of this two day NICD-11 Expert Roundtable meeting are now available:

Agenda

Recording Mp3 ICD-11 Expert Roundtable Meeting – Day 1 August 6, 2019

Recording Mp3 ICD-11 Expert Roundtable Meeting – Day 2 August 7, 2019

Update

Transcript Day 1 –  August 6, 2019
[165pp]

Transcript Day 2 – August 7, 2019
[129pp]

These transcripts of the ICD-11 Roundtable two day meeting are 165 and 129 pages long and the files have only recently been posted on the NCVHS site.

I have not had time to review these yet, but they are essential reading for industry and public stakeholders in the U.S.’s potential adoption of ICD-11 or NCHS/CDC’s potential development of a clinical modification of ICD-11.

Federal Register notice of meeting:

PDF: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-08/pdf/2019-14375.pdf

Presentation slides may be available later.

Slide presentation: NCVHS Update, Rich Landen, Member, National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, Co‐chair, Standards Subcommittee, August 2019: 

Update: 

A preliminary summary of the August 6-7, 2019 ICD-11 Roundtable meeting has now been posted by NCVHS:

International Classification of Diseases,
Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) Expert Roundtable

Publication Date: October 10, 2019 PDF: Preliminary Meeting Summary

Key Points for planned Letter to Secretary, HHS:

Appendix E: Final Research Questions [Will be inserted by Expert Roundtable group when final]

Appendix F: ICD-11 Communications Plan [Will be inserted by Expert Roundtable group when final]

 

Coding industry reports:

AHIMA Participates in ICD-11 Expert Roundtable summary by Sue Bowman, MJ, RHIA, CCS, FAHIMA, Aug 28, 2019

US gets the ball rolling on ICD-11 AAPC, August 16, 2019

 

1 WHO Group Discusses ICD-11 Transition Planning report by Sue Bowman, MJ, RHIA, CCS, FAHIMA for Journal of AHIMA (American Health Information Management Association)

2 Presentation: Status on ICD-11: The WHO Launch National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, July 18, 2018, Donna Pickett, Chief, Classifications and Public Health Data Standards, Head, Collaborating Center for the WHO-FIC in North America; Robert N. Anderson, PhD Chief, Mortality Statistics Branch Division of Vital Statistics

 

WHO-FIC Africa

WHO-FIC Africa Collaborating Centre has said:

ICD-10 is the current standard for Morbidity (cause of illness) and Mortality (cause of death (COD) coding.

The ongoing implementation and maintenance of ICD-10 for mortality and morbidity coding remain a core focus of the WHO-FIC Collaborating Centre (African region). Following the release of ICD-11 MMS in June 2018, there will be increasing focus on ICD-11 in the work plan of the collaborating centre. Inputs to the development of ICD-11 are essential to ensure that the classification meets regional needs.

WHO-FIC Africa News: WHO on the Implementation of ICD-11, November 2018:

WHO-FIC collaborators met in Pretoria (South Africa) on 7 November 2018, discussing the implications for implementing ICD-11 and ICHI. We linked up with Nenad Kostanjsek from WHO (Geneva), who shared his thoughts about the preparation for implementation of ICD-11.

Download presentation slides

 

Other member states

This table from the eHealth DSI Semantic Knowledge Base project compiles information provided from a number of member states on their use of ICD (or a modification of ICD) and their plans regarding potential future implementation of ICD-11. Information provided by: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxenbourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Table: Current status of the use of ICD by eHDSI deploying countries (2018)

Resources:

ICD-11: The 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases – Site maintained by eHealth DSI Semantic Community providing resources for ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD derivative classifications and other classification and terminology systems

Insights into the Next Revision: Like Texas, Everything is Bigger in ICD-11, Kathy Giannangelo, RHIA, CCS, CPHIMS, FHIMA, Texas Health Information Management Association

Advertisements

Response to Recommendations from November 2011 CFSAC meeting

Response to Recommendations from November 2011 CFSAC meeting

Post #203 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2ur

The response from the Assistant Secretary for Health to Recommendations from the November 2011 CFSAC meeting is now available on the CFSAC website at: http://1.usa.gov/OghDXF

http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/asst-sect-letter2012.pdf

or open here  asst-sect-letter2012

Text:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Washington, D.C. 20201
AUG -3 2012
Gailen Marshall Jr., MD, PhD

Chair, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee
Professor and Chair Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics
The University of Mississippi Medical Center 2300
North State Street, N416 Jackson, MS 39216-4505

Dear Dr. Marshall:

I have received the recommendations developed by the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) during its November 8-9, 2011, meeting. The advice and counsel provided by CFSAC serves as a valuable resource in the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) efforts to properly address the issues and concerns pertaining to chronic fatigue syndrome.

Since the meeting the Department has carefully considered your recommendations. Dr. Nancy Lee, the Designated Federal Officer for CFSAC, has worked collaboratively with the ex officio representatives to the committee to provide responses to the recommendations developed at the meeting. The enclosed document contains information about activities currently undertaken by HHS to work with public health experts and members of the chronic fatigue syndrome community to increase knowledge and provide a better understanding of this debilitating health condition.

I have shared the committee’s recommendations with Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The Department is committed to addressing this condition. I commend you and your committee members for the important work you do.

Sincerely yours,
/s/Howard K. Koh
Howard K. Koh, M.D., M.P.H. Assistant Secretary for Health

Enclosure

cc: Dr. Christopher R. Snell
U.S. Public Health Service

RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CFSAC)

REF: November 8-9, 2011 CFSAC Meeting

Recommendation 1: This recommendation addresses the process by which CFSAC transmits recommendations to the Secretary and the Secretary communicates back to CFSAC whether or not a recommendation was acted upon. CFSAC recommends that this process be transparent and clearly articulated to include regular feedback on the status of the Committee’s recommendations. This communication could originate directly from the Office of the Secretary or be transmitted via the relevant agency or agencies.

Procedures are in place to ensure that recommendations made by federal advisory committees are properly handled. The CFSAC charter stipulates that the Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH). Initially, the CFSAC recommendations are sent to the ASH for review. After reviewing the recommendations, the ASH forwards them to appropriate officials within the Office of the Secretary and the Operating and/or Staff Divisions that may be impacted by the Committee’s recommendations. A letter is sent to acknowledge receipt of the recommendations. A response may be prepared to accompany the letter which describes any actions that the Department may take in response to the recommendations made by the Committee. All pertinent information about the recommendations is provided to the designated Federal officer (DFO). The DFO then provides the information to the Chair and the Committee.

Recommendation 2: CFSAC recommends to the Secretary that the NIH or other appropriate agency issue a Request for Application (RFA) for clinical trials research on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds research on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS); investigators are encouraged to submit proposals for ME/CFS research, including clinical trials, through two funding announcements that are currently open for submission of applications. The next deadline for receipt of applications is October 24, 2012. In fiscal year 2011, NIH funded two applications for clinical trials on ME/CFS. NIH has received few applications proposing ME/CFS research, and even fewer applications proposing ME/CFS clinical trials. It is unclear whether the paucity of ME/CFS clinical trial applications reflects the current status of the field or an acknowledgement that clinical trials are difficult to design for a complex and multi-faceted illness. Clinical trials are challenging to design and conduct for all diseases, with basic requirements of a well-defined patient population, valid measurement instruments, appropriate safeguards for subjects, and generalizability of the clinical trial outcomes to the larger affected patient population. NIH is taking action to stimulate ME/CFS research across NIH through the regular monthly meetings of the Trans-NIH ME/CFS Working Group (WG). The WG discusses the current status of ongoing research on ME/CFS and proposes methods to increase the number and quality of research applications submitted to NIH ranging from preclinical research to clinical trials. In addition, the WG is focusing on the recommendations from the April 2011 State of the Knowledge Workshop on ME/CFS to develop priorities. The outcome from these planning sessions will suggest a range of activities and research.

Recommendation 3: CFSAC would like to encourage and support the creation of the DHHS Interagency Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ask this group to work together to pool resources that would put into place the “Centers of Excellence” concept that has been recommended repeatedly by this advisory committee. Specifically, CFSAC encourages utilizing HHS agency programs and demonstration projects, available through the various agencies, to develop and coordinate an effort supporting innovative platforms that facilitate evaluation and treatment, research, and public and provider education. These could take the form of appropriately staffed physical locations, or be virtual networks comprising groups of qualified individuals who interact through a variety of electronic media. Outreach and availability to underserved populations, including people who do not have access to expert care, should be a priority in this effort.

HHS leadership has identified the need for a Department-wide plan to address ME/CFS. The Department established the HHS Ad Hoc Workgroup on ME/CFS to develop a plan and to identify opportunities for interagency collaboration. The HHS ME/CFS plan will highlight recently initiated programs and future agency-specific and cross-agency activities. In developing the report, the Ad Hoc Workgroup will consider recommendations made by CFSAC. After completion, the ME/CFS plan will be posted on the CFSAC website. The DFO, Nancy C. Lee, M.D. is responsible for providing leadership and coordination for development of the HHS ME/CFS report.

Recommendation 4: This multi-part recommendation pertains to classification of CFS in ICD classification systems:

a) CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi-system disease and rejects any proposal to classify ME/CFS as a psychiatric condition in the U.S. disease classification systems.

b) CFSAC rejects the current classification of ME/CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD-9-CM under R53.82, chronic fatigue unspecified, chronic fatigue syndrome, not otherwise specified.

c) CFSAC continues to recommend that ME/CFS should be classified in ICD-IO-CM in Chapter 6 under Diseases of the Nervous System at G93.3 in line with ICD-IO, the World Health Organization, and ICD-I-CA [sic], the Canadian Clinical Modification and in accordance with CFSAC’s recommendations of August 2005 and May 2011. CFSAC rejects CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Option 2 and recommends that ME/CFS remain in the same code and the same subcode as myalgic encephalomyelitis because CFS includes both viral and non-viral triggers.

d) CFSAC recommends that an “excludes one”* be added to G93.3 for chronic fatigue, R53.82, and neurasthenia, F48.8. CFSAC recommends that these changes be made in ICD-10-CM prior to its rollout in 2013.**

[*Ed: Should read “Excludes 1”. For definitions for “Excludes1″ and “Excludes2″ see Post #118]

[**Ed: On August 3, HHS announced Final Rule to delay compliance date for ICD-10-CM/PCS to October 1, 2014.]

Development and implementation of the guidelines for the lCD-10 fall within HHS under the purview of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Use of the revised codes will provide robust and specific data that will improve patient care and enable the international comparability of health care data. On February 16, 2012, the Department issued a press release announcing that HHS would initiate a process to postpone the date that certain health care entities must comply with the ICD-10.

A proposal to change the classification of ME/CFS in ICD-10-CM was presented at the September 2011 Coordination and Maintenance (C & M) Committee/CDC/NCHS; a subsequent proposal was received on January 12, 2012 and will be presented at the September 19, 2012 C & M meeting for additional discussion.

+++
Related posts

Notice of Meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee

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

Extracts: ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting Summary document (CFS coding)

Extracts: ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting September 14, 2011 (Coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM)

%d bloggers like this: