Australian Senate seeks clarifications from ICD Revision

Post #337 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-4iV

UK Parliamentary Questions

In February and March, the Countess of Mar tabled Written Questions in the House of Lords seeking clarifications from the World Health Organization (WHO) around ICD Revision’s proposals for the ICD-10 “legacy” terms, postviral fatigue syndrome, benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome for ICD-11.

Both responses were as clear as mud and both refer to “chronic fatigue” – a term that exists neither in ICD-10 nor in ICD-11, and a term for which no proposal had been submitted.

You can view those Written Questions and Written Answers here:

HL5683
Written Question: 27 February 2017, Countess of Mar
Department of Health, Neurology

Written Answer: 07 March 2017, Lord O’Shaughnessy

HL6136
Written Question: 20 March 2017, Countess of Mar
Department of Health, Chronic fatigue syndrome

Written Answer: 28 March 2017, Lord O’Shaughnessy

Australian Senate also seeks clarifications

On March 29, Senator Griff (South Australian Senate) requested clarifications around the release date for ICD Revision’s proposals for the classification of the G93.3 legacy terms and the deadline for receipt of stakeholder comments.

A response was provided via the Minister of Health on April 28. These questions and responses will be recorded in the Australian Hansard.

In the context of the Australian Health Minister’s answers, please note the following and also the Notes beneath the copy of the Minister’s response:

1. When the G93.3 legacy terms were restored to the Beta draft on March 26 they were restored with this caveat:

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 – 12:46 UTC​

2. From the Beta draft Proposal Mechanism (for which registration is required):

Deadline Information for proposals:

Deadline in order to be considered for the final version is 30 March 2017

Comments by Member States and improvements arising as a part of the Quality Assurance mechanism will be included with deadlines later in 2017

3. In this November 2016 slide presentation by WHO’s, Dr Robert Jakob, the deadlines for Member State comments and improvements arising as part of the Quality Assurance mechanism were given as:

2017 Deadline Members State comments (31 May )
2017 Deadline Field testing / quality assurance (30 June)​

4. However, no public information has been available for the deadline for receipt of stakeholder comments in respect of proposals that met the March 30 deadline for consideration for inclusion in the final (2018) version.

Australian Senate Question and Response

SENATE QUESTION
QUESTION NUMBER: 435

DATE ASKED: 29 March 2017
DATE DUE TABLING: 28 April 2017

SENATOR Griff, asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 29 March 2017:

With reference to the World Health Organization (WHO) which is currently working on the latest edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), and the Australian Collaborating Centre under the auspices of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is coordinating Australia’s part in the latest edition:

1. Can the Minister request that the Joint Task Force responsible for steering the finalisation of the next edition of the WHO International Classification of Diseases to confirm the date by which the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology will release its proposals for the classification of the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy categories: post viral fatigue syndrome, benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome, for public scrutiny and comment.

2. Can the Minister confirm the date by which comments on their proposals will be required to be submitted for the consideration of the Joint Task Force.

3. Can the Minister detail what the Australian Government is doing in terms of research into and treatment for post viral fatigue syndrome, benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome.

SENATOR NASH – The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the Honourable Senator’s question:

1. The World Health Organization (WHO) has released its classification of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code G93.3 legacy categories (post viral fatigue syndrome, benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome) in ICD-11; they are classified in the same way as they were in ICD-10*. This classification is visible in the draft of the ICD-11 that is available for comment on the WHO’s ICD-11 website. WHO has advised that the final classification in the ICD-11 will be decided based on an extensive scientific review.

WHO has been managing the development of ICD-11 with the advice from advisory groups including the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology and the Joint Task Force. The Topic Advisory Group for Neurology ceased operations in October 2016.

2. WHO has advised that comments on ICD-11 can be provided by anyone at any time through the ICD-11 website. Whilst the deadline for such comments to be made for consideration by WHO in the finalisation of ICD-11 for its release in 2018 was 30 March 2017, comments can be made after that date for consideration for future updates of ICD-11.

3. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has provided $1.6 million of research funding towards myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome and other related fatigue states (ME/CFS) collectively since 1999.

NHMRC has created an online pathway for community and professional groups to propose ideas for health research topics and questions, which NHMRC may develop into a targeted call for research to invite grant applications. A targeted call for research is a one-time request for grant applications to advance research in a particular area of health and medicine that will benefit Australians. A submission on ME/CFS had been received through this pathway and is under consideration.

NHMRC staff are also in communication with the ME/CFS Action Group to discuss ways evidence based diagnostic and treatment advice can be adapted and applied in Australian clinical practice.​

*Ed: The statement: “…[the terms] are classified in the same way as they were in ICD-10.” is not entirely correct. In ICD-10, chronic fatigue syndrome is not included in the Tabular List. It is listed in the Index, only, and points coders and clinicians to the G93.3 code. In the ICD-11 Beta listing for these terms, as restored (with a caveat) on March 26, both benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome are specified as Inclusion terms to Postviral fatigue syndrome in both the ICD-11 Foundation and MMS Linearization (the ICD-11 equivalent of the Tabular List).

 

Notes:

This Australian Senate Response would appear to clarify the following:

a) that despite nearly 10 years in development and with ICD-11 MMS due to be finalized by the end of this year, ICD Revision has still not reached consensus over the proposed classification of these three ICD-10 terms.

b) that the terms’ current placement and hierarchy in the ICD-11 Beta (as restored to the draft on March 26) may change between now and the end of this year or between now and the first scheduled annual maintenance and update revision (which would be expected in 2019, if ICD-11 is released in 2018).

In order to be ready to present an initial version of ICD-11 to the WHA assembly in May 2018, the draft will need to be finalized by the end of 2017. See: Presentation with targets and timelines

If consensus were to be reached before the end of 2017, the Response does not clarify whether revised proposals would be entered into the Proposal Mechanism for public scrutiny and comment (or for how long) or would by-pass the Proposal Mechanism and be entered directly into the Beta draft as “Approved” and “Implemented” for incorporation into the final (2018) draft.

Or, having missed the March 30 deadline for consideration for inclusion in the initial 2018 release, whether any revised proposals released before the end of 2017 would need to be carried forward for consideration for inclusion in the first annual update in 2019, and if so, whether there would be any opportunity, at that stage, for stakeholder review and comment.

c) The response clarifies that the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology ceased operations in October 2016. Although it was understood that at some point the various Topic Advisory Groups would cease operating, the fact that TAG Neurology was no longer active was not communicated by Dr Robert Jakob or by the Joint Task Force to those of us attempting to obtain crucial information about proposals and deadlines via communications which, in some instances, the Chair of TAG Neurology (Dr Raad Shakir) was being copied into.

 

Two new ICD-11 advisory committees are expected to take over from the Joint Task Force:

Classification and Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC) To perform as principal ICD-11 advisory committee, focusing mainly on ICD-11 MMS and its update proposals in mortality and morbidity

Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC) To advise on scientific content for the ICD-11, of which advice is to be provided to CSAC

These advisory committees will be involved in the annual maintenance and update framework for ICD-11, once it has been released.

The Medical Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC) was launched at the ICD-11 Revision Conference in 2016 and is expected to comprise approximately 6-10 experts selected by WHO. Dr Christopher Chute, who had chaired the ICD Revision Steering Group from 2010-2016, is a Co-Chair for the MSAC. Membership lists for MSAC and CSAC are not currently available and these new committees may still be in the process of being assembled.

It is possible that MASC and CSAC may be involved in final decisions about these terms, especially if consensus is not reached before the end of 2017.

 

Four day commenting window

The three terms were restored to the Beta draft on Sunday, March 26, when my long-standing proposals for exclusions under “Fatigue” were also partially approved and implemented, together with a somewhat opaque caveat posted by a Beta admin that prompted me to request clarification from Dr Jakob for its meaning.

Dr Jakob confirmed that the three terms had been restored to the Beta draft on March 26. But the restoration of the terms under parent, Other disorders of the nervous system was not viewable in the public version of the Beta until midday on Monday, March 27, because the public version of the platform had not been updated over the weekend and neither had the Print Versions or the Print Version of the Index.

This meant that having finally been restored to the draft, after a four year absence, the terms were viewable and open for comment by stakeholders for barely 4 days before the March 30 proposal and comment deadline was reached.

This also implies that several hundred stakeholder comments submitted after March 30 in response to the proposal submitted by myself and Mary Dimmock may have been submitted too late to be considered in the context of proposals that had met the March 30 deadline (which ours did) and may potentially be rolled forward for future consideration.

In February, I had asked Dr Robert Jakob and the Co-Chairs of the Joint Task Force three or four times if they would clarify by what date comments on proposals that met the March 30 deadline would need to be submitted – information that was vital for all public stakeholders planning to submit comment on Beta draft proposals – but these requests for clarification were sidestepped by both Dr Jakob and the Joint Task Force.

Stakeholders and stakeholder organizations should not be discouraged from submitting comments if they have not already done so.

The handling of these terms by ICD Revision (which included a four year period during which stakeholders were disenfranchised from the revision process – unable to scrutinize and comment on proposals because the terms had been inexplicably removed from the draft) and the cavalier and frequently obfuscatory manner in which stakeholder enquiries have been fielded, reflects very poorly on the WHO’s vision of an “open and transparent” revision process that is “inclusive of stakeholder participation” and on the WHO, in general.

PDF Questions tabled by Senator Griff (March 29, 2017) and Minister’s Response (April 28, 2017)


Key links

For a summary of our proposal and links for submitting comment via the Beta draft see: A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part Two

Advertisements

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

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

Update: August 6, 2015

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

ICD Project Plan 2015 to 2018

 

As previously posted

2017

And so it goes on…

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

Then a shift to 2015, then to 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHO says:

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Questions raised on ICD-11 Beta draft re: Bodily distress disorder

Post #311 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Yh

+++

Screenshot: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version, July 31, 2014; Chapter 06 Mental and behavioural disorders: Bodily distress disorder.

+++
BDD310714

 
Joint Linerarization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics view selected; “show availability in main linearizations” view selected. Categories designated with three coloured key hover text: “In Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource. Categories designated with single blue key hover text: “In Mortality and Morbidity.”

+++

Yesterday, I left the following comments and questions for TAG Mental Health Managing Editors via the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform.

In order to read the comment in situ you will need to be registered with the Beta drafting platform, logged in, then click on the grey and orange quote icon at the end of the category Title.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1121638993

Bodily distress disorder, severe

Comments on title

Suzy Chapman 2014-Jul-23 – 14:01 UTC

Definitions for three uniquely coded severities for Bodily distress disorder: Mild; Moderate; Severe, have recently been inserted into the Beta draft.

The Definition for Bodily distress disorder (BDD) and its three severity characterizations appears to be based on the BDD disorder descriptions in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper: Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders [1].

As conceptualized by the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG), BDD is proposed to replace the seven ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories F45.0 to F45.9, and F48.0 Neurasthenia.

The S3DWG’s BDD eliminates the requirement that symptoms be “medically unexplained” as the central defining feature; focuses on identification of positive psychobehavioural responses (excessive preoccupation with bodily symptoms, unreasonable illness fear, frequent or persistent healthcare utilization, activity avoidance for fear of damaging the body) in response to any (unspecific) persistent, distressing, single or multiple bodily symptom(s), resulting in significant impairment of functioning or frequent seeking of reassurance; makes no assumptions about aetiology, and in “[d]oing away with the unreliable assumption of its causality, the diagnosis of BDD does not exclude the presence of (…) a co-occurring physical health condition.”

The S3DWG’s BDD has no requirement for symptom counts, or for symptom patterns or symptom clusters from body or organ systems, which describes a disorder framework with good concordance with DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD).

According to the Beta draft, BDD’s three severity specifiers are proposed to be characterized on the basis of the extent to which responses to persistent, distressing bodily symptoms are perceived as excessive and on the degree of impairment, not on the basis of number of bodily symptoms and number of body or organ systems affected.

In comparison, psychobehavioural responses do not form part of Fink et al’s (2010) Bodily Distress Syndrome criteria. BDS’s criteria and two severities are based on symptom patterns from body systems (a BDS Modest, single-organ type and a BDS Severe, Multi-organ type).

In 2012, the Lam et al paper [2], set out emerging proposals for the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group’s (PCCG) recommendations for a “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS).”

The PCCG’s proposals described a disorder construct that had good concordance with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome, drawing heavily on Fink et al’s criteria set. Although at that point, the PCCG proposed to incorporate some SSD-like psychobehavioural features within their tentative criteria. The PCCG appeared to be proposing a modified version of the Fink et al (2010) BDS construct.

In an Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D (June 2013) editorial [3], the co-authors advance the position that the forthcoming revision of ICD provides an opportunity to include BDS in a revised classification for primary care. According to this June 2013 editorial, the PCCG’s proposal for a modified BDS disorder construct, which it had earlier proposed to call “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS),” appears to have been revised to using the Fink et al “Bodily distress syndrome (BDS)” term.

The editorial implies that BDS (which subsumes the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,” CFS, ME, IBS, Fibromyalgia, chronic pain disorder, MCS and some others, under a single, overarching disorder) was expected to be progressing, imminently, to ICD-11 field trials.

(A revision of the earlier BSS disorder name is not discussed within the editorial; nor whether any modifications to, or deviance from a “pure” BDS construct and criteria were being recommended for the purposes of field testing; nor are the alternative proposals of the S3DWG referenced or discussed; nor are the views of the Revision Steering Group on either set of proposals discussed.)

According to Lam et al (2012) and Ivbijaro and Goldberg (June 2013), the model proposed is that of “autonomic over-arousal,” which the authors consider may be responsible for most or all of the somatic symptoms that are experienced.

Again, compare with the S3DWG’s BDD construct, which makes no assumptions about aetiology and does not exclude the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition, whereas, for both Lam et al’s 2012 BSS and for Fink et al’s BDS, “If the symptoms are better explained by another disease, they cannot be labelled BDS.”

Potential for confusion between divergent disorder constructs:

The term “Bodily distress disorder” and the term “Bodily distress syndrome” (Fink et al, 2010), which is already operationalized in Denmark in research and clinical settings, are often seen being used interchangeably in the literature. For example, in this very recent editorial by Rief and Isaac [4]. Also in papers by Fink and others from 2007 onwards [5].

However, the S3DWG’s defining of a “Bodily distress disorder” construct has stronger conceptual alignment and criteria congruency with DSM-5’s SSD and poor conceptual and criteria congruency with Fink et al’s BDS. That SSD and BDS are very different concepts is acknowledged by Fink, Creed and Henningsen [6] [7].

Although the 2013 Ivbijaro and Goldberg editorial implies that Fink et al’s BDS construct was going forward to ICD-11 field testing, it is the S3DWG’s Bodily distress disorder name and construct that has been entered into the Beta draft – the construct that has stronger conceptual alignment with DSM-5’s SSD.

So the current proposals and intentions for field testing a potential replacement for the SDs remain unclear. This is severely hampering professional and consumer stakeholder scrutiny, discourse and input.

Four questions for TAG Mental Health Managing Editors:

1. Have the S3DWG sub working group, the PCCG working group and the Revision Steering Group reached consensus over a potential replacement framework and disorder construct for ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders and F48.0 Neurasthenia, and the ICD-10-PHC categories: F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms, and F48 Neurasthenia?

2. Which recommendations are being progressed to international field testing and does ICD-11 intend to release the protocol or other information on finalized characteristics, diagnostic guidelines, criteria, inclusions, exclusions, differential diagnoses etc, that are planned to be used for the field tests and which would provide the level of detail lacking in the public version of the Beta drafting platform?

3. If, in the context of ICD-11 usage, the S3DWG working group’s proposal for a replacement for the Somatoform disorders remains for a disorder model with good concordance with the DSM-5 SSD construct, what is the rationale for proposing to name this disorder “Bodily distress disorder”?

4. Have the S3DWG, PCCG and Revision Steering Group given consideration to the significant potential for confusion if its replacement construct for the Somatoform disorders has greater conceptual alignment with the SSD construct but is assigned a disorder name that sounds very similar to, and is already being used interchangeably with an operationalized but divergent construct and criteria set?

References:

1. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Full text behind paywall]

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

3. Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Ment Health Fam Med. 2013 Jun;10(2):63-4. Full free text available on 2014/6/1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822636/pdf/MHFM-10-063.pdf

4. Rief W, Isaac M. The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? Curr Opin Psychiatry (2014). Full free: http://journals.lww.com/co-psychiatry/Fulltext/2014/09000/The_future_of_somatoform_disorders___somatic.2.aspx

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

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

7. Discussions between Prof Francis Creed and Prof Per Fink during Research Clinic for Functional Disorders Symposium presentations, Aarhus University Hospital, May 15, 2014, noted that Fink et al BDS and DSM-5 SSD are “very different concepts.”

+++

September symposium presentation on BDD:

In September, Professor Oye Gureje (who chairs the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders), will be presenting on Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders, as part of series of symposia on the development of the ICD-11 chapter for mental and behavioural disorders, at the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress in Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014.

Unfortunately, I cannot attend this September symposia but would be pleased to hear from anyone who may be planning to attend.

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

+++
Further reading:

Dx Revision Watch Post: Definitions for three severities of “Bodily distress disorder” now inserted in ICD-11 Beta draft, July 19, 2014 http://wp.me/pKrrB-3X9

Dx Revision Watch Post: Editorial: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (Goldberg and ICD-11-PHC), June 3, 2014: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Uh

Definitions for three severities of “Bodily distress disorder” now inserted in ICD-11 Beta draft

Post #310 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3X9

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

This report updates on recent additions to the listing for Bodily distress disorder in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft.

This is an edited version of the report published on July 19.

+++
Bodily distress disorder (BDD) is a new, single diagnostic category that has been proposed for ICD-11. It is intended to subsume the seven ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories F45.0 – F45.9, and F48.0 Neurasthenia.

Bodily distress disorder (BDD) is the term that has been entered into the Beta drafting platform since February 2012.

It is the term and disorder construct that has been proposed by the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG), which is chaired by Professor Oye Gureje [1].

Note: the term Bodily stress syndrome (BSS) (Lam et al, 2012) is an alternative disorder term and diagnostic construct that has been proposed by the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG), which is chaired by Professor Sir David Goldberg [2].

The disorder term and construct Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) has also been advanced for ICD-11 in a June 2013 editorial by Ivbijaro G and Goldberg D [3].

Neither of the terms Bodily stress syndrome (BSS) or Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) has been entered into the ICD-11 Beta draft.

+++
ICD-11 Beta drafting platform (public version):

A Definition for category Bodily distress disorder was inserted into the Beta draft in late January 2014.

At that point, no definitions or characterizations for any of the uniquely coded BDD severity specifiers (currently, BDD, mild; BDD, moderate; BDD, severe) had been inserted.

+++
How is BDD being defined for the purposes of ICD-11?

The psychological and behavioural features that characterize Bodily distress disorder, as currently defined in the Beta draft, are drawn from the disorder conceptualizations in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper on emerging proposals for the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders [1].

This paper sits behind a paywall but I have had a copy since it was first published.

The paper describes a disorder model that has poor concordance with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome construct.

The 2012 Creed, Gureje paper defines BDD as:

“a much simplified set of criteria”;

eliminates the requirement that symptoms be “medically unexplained” as the central defining feature;

focuses on identification of positive psychobehavioural responses (excessive preoccupation with bodily symptoms, unreasonable illness fear, frequent or persistent healthcare utilization, activity avoidance for fear of damaging the body) in response to any (unspecific) persistent, distressing, single or multiple bodily symptom(s), resulting in significant impairment of functioning or frequent seeking of reassurance;

makes no assumptions about aetiology and in “[d]oing away with the unreliable assumption of its causality the diagnosis of BDD does not exclude the presence of (…) a co-occurring physical health condition”;

has no requirement for symptom counts, or for symptom patterns or symptom clusters from body or organ systems

– which describes a disorder framework into which DSM-5′s “Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD)” could potentially be integrated, facilitating harmonization between a replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders and DSM-5’s new SSD.

+++
Whereas, Fink et al’s 2010 Bodily Distress Syndrome criteria are based on impairment and symptom patterns from body systems. Positive psychobehavioural features do not form part of the Fink et al criteria [4–6].

For ICD-11’s BDD, patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms and the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition is not an exclusion.

But for Fink et al’s BDS, “If the symptoms are better explained by another disease, they cannot be labelled BDS.”

BDD’s three severity specifiers are proposed to be characterized on the basis of the extent to which responses to persistent, distressing symptoms are perceived as excessive and on degree of impairment, not on the basis of the number of bodily symptoms and the number of body or organ systems that are affected by the disorder.

In contrast, BDS’s two severities are based on symptom patterns (a BDS Modest, single-organ type and a BDS Severe, Multi-organ type).

Both BDD and BDS are intended to subsume the Somatoform disorders and Neurasthenia.

But BDS seeks to arrogate the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,” CFS, ME, IBS, Fibromyalgia, chronic pain disorder, MCS and some others, and subsume them under a single, overarching BDS diagnosis [6].

So although the BDD and BDS disorder names sound very similar (and the terms are sometimes seen used interchangeably), as defined in the 2012 Creed, Gureje paper and as defined by the recently inserted Beta draft Definitions, ICD-11’s BDD and Fink et al’s BDS present divergent constructs*.

It is the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group‘s 2012 proposals for a “Bodily stress disorder” [2] that had stronger conceptual alignment and criteria congruency with Fink et al’s BDS.

*Discussions between Profs Creed and Fink during the Research Clinic for Functional Disorders Symposium presentations, Aarhus University Hospital, May 15, 2014, noted that Fink et al’s BDS and DSM-5’s SSD are “very different concepts.” That SSD and BDS are divergent constructs is also discussed in: Medically Unexplained Symptoms, Somatisation and Bodily Distress: Developing Better Clinical Services, Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen, Per Fink (Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

+++
ICD-11 BDD, mild; moderate and severe specifiers, now defined:

In the last few days, Definitions for the three uniquely coded Severity specifiers:

6B40 Bodily distress disorder, mild

6B41 Bodily distress disorder, moderate

6B42 Bodily distress disorder, severe

have been inserted into the Beta draft.

+++
The Definition for the Title term Bodily distress disorder remains the same as previously reported:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268

Chapter 06 Mental and behavioural disorders

Bodily distress disorder [In Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource Linearizations]

Foundation Id: http://id.who.int/icd/entity/767044268

Parent(s)

Mental and behavioural disorders            ICD-10 : F45

Definition

Bodily distress disorder is characterized by high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking, and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The most common symptoms include pain (including musculoskeletal and chest pains, backache, headaches), fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and respiratory symptoms, although patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms. Bodily distress disorder most commonly involves multiple bodily symptoms, though some cases involve a single very bothersome symptom (usually pain or fatigue).

Synonyms

somatoform disorders
Somatization disorder

Exclusions [Ed: with the exception of Hypochondriasis, Exclusions are imported from ICD-10 F45 Somatoform disorders Exclusions.]

lisping
lalling
psychological or behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere
nail-biting
sexual dysfunction, not caused by organic disorder or disease
thumb-sucking
tic disorders (in childhood and adolescence)
Tourette syndrome
trichotillomania
dissociative disorders
hair-plucking
Hypochondriasis

+++
This is the recently added Definition for 6B40 Bodily distress disorder, mild:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1472866636

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1472866636

6B40 Bodily distress disorder, mild [In Mortality and Morbidity Linearizations]

Foundation Id: http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1472866636

Parent(s)

Definition 

Bodily distress disorder, mild is a form of Bodily distress disorder in which there is excessive attention to bothersome symptoms and their consequences, which may result in frequent medical visits. The person is not preoccupied with the symptoms (e.g., spends less than an hour per day focusing on them). Although the individual expresses distress about the symptoms and they may have some impact on his or her life (e.g., strain in relationships, less effective academic or occupational functioning, abandonment of specific leisure activities) there is no substantial impairment in the person’s personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

All Index Terms

  • Bodily distress disorder, mild

+++
Here’s the Definition for 6B41 Bodily distress disorder, moderate:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1967782703

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1967782703

6B41 Bodily distress disorder, moderate [In Mortality and Morbidity Linearizations]

Foundation Id : http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1967782703

Parent(s)

Definition 

Bodily distress disorder, moderate is a form of bodily distress disorder in which there is persistent preoccupation with bothersome symptoms and their consequences (e.g., spends more than an hour a day thinking about them), typically associated with frequent medical visits such that the person devotes much of his or her energy to focusing on the symptoms and their consequences, with consequent moderate impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (e.g., relationship conflict, performance problems at work, abandonment of a range of social and leisure activities).

All Index Terms

  • Bodily distress disorder, moderate

+++
  And here’s the Definition for 6B42 Bodily distress disorder, severe:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1121638993

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1121638993

6B42 Bodily distress disorder, severe [In Mortality and Morbidity Linearizations]

Foundation Id: http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1121638993

Parent(s)

Definition

Bodily distress disorder, severe is a form of bodily distress disorder in which there is pervasive and persistent preoccupation to the extent that the symptoms may become the focal point of the person’s life, typically requiring extensive interactions with the health care system. Preoccupation with the experienced symptoms and their consequences causes serious impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (e.g., unable to work, alienation of friends and family, abandonment of nearly all social and leisure activities). The person’s interests may become so narrow so as to focus almost exclusively on his or her bodily symptoms and their negative consequences.

All Index Terms

  • Bodily distress disorder, severe

+++
What will ICD-11 be field testing?

Field testing of a potential replacement for the existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders framework is expected to be conducted over the next year or two. Disorders that survive the ICD-11-PHC field tests must have an equivalent disorder in the main ICD-11 classification.

So whatever replaces the existing ICD-10-PHC categories, F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms and F48 Neurasthenia, (which is also proposed to be eliminated for the ICD-11 primary care version), will need an equivalent disorder in the main classification.

International field tests across a range of primary care settings had been anticipated to start from June, last year, but there were reported delays. It isn’t known whether consensus has been reached yet over disorder construct and diagnostic criteria for use in the field tests, or whether field testing is now underway.

I cannot confirm whether ICD-11 intends to release a protocol into the public domain for whatever construct it plans to field test, or may already be field testing.

Currently, there is no publicly available protocol or other information on finalized characteristics, diagnostic guidelines, criteria, inclusions, exclusions, differential diagnoses etc. that are planned to be used for the field tests which would provide the level of detail lacking in the public version of the Beta drafting platform.

+++

So which construct does ICD-11 Revision Steering Group favour?

Although BDD (and now its three severities) have been defined within the Beta draft, much remains unclear for proposals for the revision of this section of ICD-11 Mental and behavioural disorders.

The ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group’s alternative 2012 Bodily stress syndrome (BSS) construct – a near clone of Fink et al’s BDS criteria but with some SSD-like psychobehavioural responses tacked on – isn’t the construct that is entered and defined within the Beta draft.

In June 2013, Prof Gabriel Ivbijaro (not, himself, a member of the PCCG) and Prof Sir David Goldberg (who chairs the PCCG) published a joint editorial in Mental Health in Family Medicine, the official journal of The World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca) Working Party on Mental Health, for which Prof Ivbijaro is Editor in Chief.

The authors advance the position that the forthcoming revision of ICD “provides an opportunity to include BDS in a revised classification for primary care” and imply that BDS (at least at that point) was progressing, imminently, to ICD-11 field trials.

This brief editorial was embargoed from June 2013 to June 2014 and I was unable to obtain a copy until last month, but you can read it now for free and in full here: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS).

Note, firstly, that the editorial does not declare Professor Goldberg’s interest as chair of the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group.

It does not clarify whether the views and opinions expressed within the editorial represent the views of the authors or are the official positions of the PCCG working group, or of the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, or of the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group (RSG), or of any committees on which co-author, Prof Ivbijaro, sits or of any bodies to which Prof Ivbijaro is affiliated.

No publicly posted progress reports are being issued by ICD-11 or by either of the two groups making recommendations for the revision of this section of ICD and I do not have a second source that confirms the status of proposals as they stood in June 2013.

But taking the editorial at face value, it would appear that the PCCG had revised its earlier proposals for a BSS construct (that drew heavily on Fink et al’s BDS criteria but had included the requirement for some psychobehavioural responses) and were now recommending that the Fink et al BDS construct and criteria should progress for ICD-11-PHC field testing and evaluation, that is, using the same disorder name and (presumably) the same criteria set that is already operationalized in research and clinical settings, in Denmark.

(The rationale for the apparent revision of the earlier BSS disorder name is not discussed within the editorial; nor whether any modifications to, or deviance from a “pure” BDS construct and criteria were being recommended for the purposes of ICD-11 field testing.)

The editorial doesn’t clarify whether the PCCG, the S3DWG and the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group (RSG) had reached consensus – it does not mention the alternative proposals of the S3DWG, at all, or discuss what is entered into the Beta draft, or discuss the views and preferences of the Revision Steering Group for any of recommendations made by the two advisory groups, to date.

It is unclear whether a “pure” BDS construct (as opposed to the PCCG’s earlier BSS modification) had already gained Revision Steering Group approval for progressing to field testing, at the point the editorial was drafted, or whether Prof Goldberg was using this Wonca house journal as a platform on which to promote his own opinions and expectations, in a purely personal capacity.

Crucially, it doesn’t explain why, if a BDS-like construct were anticipated to be progressed to field trials in the second half of 2013, it is the S3DWG’s Bodily distress disorder diagnostic construct that has been listed and defined in the Beta draft for Foundation, Mortality and Morbidity, Primary Care High Resource, Primary Care Low Resource linearizations – not the PCCG’s 2012 BSS modification, or the “pure” BDS that Prof Goldberg evidently champions.

As a source of information on the current status of proposals for the revision of the Somatoform disorders this June 2013 editorial is problematic (and now also over a year out of date).

I suspect the politics between the 12 member PCCG (which includes Marianne Rosendal*), the 17 member S3DWG and the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group are intensely fraught given Professor Goldberg’s agenda for the revision of the Somatoform disorders, since fitting BDS into ICD-11 hasn’t proved to be the shoo in that Fink, Rosendal and colleagues had hoped for**, and given that BDS cannot be harmonized with DSM-5’s SSD, as they are conceptually divergent.

*Dr Marianne Rosendal (Department of Public Health, Aarhus University), who has published with Prof Per Fink, is the European representative on WONCA’s International Classification Committee. The vice-chair of the PCCG is Dr Michael Klinkman, a GP who represents WONCA (World Organization of Family Doctors). Dr Klinkman is current convenor of WONCA’s International Classification Committee (WICC) that is responsible for the development of ICPC-2.
**Presentation, Professor Per Fink, March 19, 2014 Danish parliamentary hearing on Functional Disorders. Prof Fink stated that he and his colleagues had tried to get WHO to incorporate a section for a special group of disorders where BDS could be placed that was located neither in psychiatry nor in general medicine, but had not been successful.

+++
Requests for clarification repeatedly stonewalled:

ICD Revision has been asked several times, via the Beta drafting platform, to clarify current proposals for the framework and disorder construct for a replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders and to clarify which construct it intends to take forward to field testing. ICD Revision has also been asked to comment on the following:

“If, in the context of ICD-11 usage, the S3DWG working group’s proposal for a replacement for the Somatoform disorders remains for a disorder model with good concordance with DSM-5′s SSD construct, what is the rationale for proposing to name this disorder “Bodily distress disorder”?

“Have the S3DWG, PCCG and Revision Steering Group given consideration to the significant potential for confusion if its replacement construct for the Somatoform disorders has greater conceptual alignment with the SSD construct but is assigned a disorder name that sounds very similar to, and is already being used interchangeably with an operationalized but divergent construct and criteria set?”

No response has been forthcoming.

Lack of publicly posted progress reports by both working groups, confusion over the content of the Beta draft and ICD Revision’s failure to respond to queries from stakeholders is hampering stakeholder scrutiny, discourse and input. It is time clinicians, researchers, allied professionals and advocacy organizations demanded transparency from ICD Revision around current proposals and field trial intentions.

+++
September symposium presentation on BDD:

In September, Professor Oye Gureje (who chairs the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders), will be presenting on Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of Bodily Distress Disorders, as part of series of symposia on the development of the ICD-11 chapter for mental and behavioural disorders, at the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, in Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014 [7].

Unfortunately, I cannot attend this symposium presentation but would be pleased to hear from anyone who may be planning to attend.

+++
References:

1. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Full text behind paywall]

2. Lam TP, Goldberg DP, Dowell AC, Fortes S, Mbatia JK, Minhas FA, Klinkman MS: Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract Feb 2013 [Epub ahead of print July 2012]. [Abstract: PMID: 22843638] Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

3. Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Ment Health Fam Med. 2013 Jun;10(2):63-4. Full free text available on 2014/6/1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822636/pdf/MHFM-10-063.pdf

4. http://funktionellelidelser.dk/en/about/bds/

5. Fink P and Schröder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2010;68:415–26.

6. Fink et al Proposed new BDS diagnostic classification

7. World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, Madrid, Spain, 14–18 September 2014.

+++
Further reading:

Dx Revision Watch Post: Editorial: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (Goldberg and ICD-11-PHC), June 3, 2014: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Uh

WHO considers further extension to ICD-11 development timeline

Post #275 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3sc

Information in this report relates to the World Health Organization’s ICD-11, currently under development. It does not apply to the current ICD version (ICD-10) or to the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

Timeline slippage

Documents posted recently by the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that ICD Revision is failing to meet development targets and a further extension to the ICD-11 timeline is under consideration.

ICD serves as the international health information standard for the collection, classification, processing and presentation of disease-related data in national and global health statistics.

The 10th edition (ICD-10) was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1990.

The development process for the next edition (ICD-11) began in April 2007, with ICD-11 scheduled for dissemination by 2012 and the timelines for the development of ICD-11 and DSM-5 running more or less in parallel [1] [2].

Early on in the revision process, the ICD-11 dissemination date was extended. By 2009, the final draft was scheduled for World Health Assembly (WHA) approval in 2014. In order to be ready for global implementation in 2015, the technical work on ICD-11 would need to be completed by 2012 [3].

The WHA approval date was subsequently shunted from 2014 to 2015 – four years later than originally planned and the current, projected implementation date is 2016+.
+++

“…And just a small detail: who will do all this work?” [4]

ICD-11 is a very ambitious and under-resourced project. Given the scale of the undertaking, the technical complexity, the limited funding and human resources, the feasibility of the project reaching its targets by May 2015 has proved unrealistic.

I have written a number of times on this site that I did not envisage dissemination of ICD-11 by 2016 without some scaling back of the project’s scope – or an announcement, at some point this year, of a further extension to the timeline.

ICD-11 Revision Steering Group considers its options

WHO has recently posted a meeting materials document [5] and a slide presentation [6] which summarize, inter alia, ICD-11’s progress, current development status and timelines for finalization date and approval by WHO Governing Bodies.

ICD Revision is considering extending the timeline by up to a couple of years.

This 14 page document Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities, Twenty-second Session 4-6 September 2013, Items for discussion and decision: Item 8 of the provisional agenda can be downloaded here

or opened on Dx Revision WatchPDF: SA-2013-12-Add1-Health-WHO

It summarizes the status of the ICD Revision process under section headings:

1. Background: need and mandate
2. General organization structure of the multiple streams of work
3. Progress and current status
4. The remaining steps
5. Further maintenance of ICD after finalization
6. Timelines for the finalization date and approval by WHO Governing Bodies

Extracts from the document setting out the rationale and options for postponement of WHA Approval:

[…]

3. Progress and Current Status of ICD Revision:

[…]

BETA PHASE:

At this point in time, 1 September 2013, an ICD2013 Beta version has been produced for review purposes and field trials after 6 years of drafting phases.

The current ICD 2013 Beta version has relatively stable classification lists (i.e. linearizations) for Mortality and Morbidity recording. It will be reviewed by the specific Mortality Reference Group and the Morbidity Reference Group to see how well it fits the purpose and proposed transition from ICD‐10.

In addition, the Beta version has planned processes for:

(i) Systematic international scientific peer review
(ii) Submission of additional proposals from public groups and scientists
(iii) Conducting field trials for its applicability and reliability
(iv) Production support in multiple languages (translations) starting with WHO official languages
(v) Preparations for transitions from ICD‐10 to ICD‐11.

[…]

6. Timelines

The current ICD Revision Process timeline foresees that the ICD is submitted to the WHA in 2015 May and could then be implemented. Between now and 2015, there remains 20 months to conduct the remaining tasks summarized above as: 1. Reviews, 2. Additional Proposals, 3. Field Trials, 4. Translations, and 5. Transition Preparations.

Given the technical requirements these steps could be expedited in the next 20 months. The experience obtained thus far, however, suggests that this timeframe will be extremely tight for paying due diligence to the work especially in terms of: appropriate consultations with expert groups; communication and dissemination with stakeholders; and sufficient time for field testing in multiple countries and settings, and carrying out the resulting edits.

WHO Secretariat would like to discuss this with all stakeholders and evaluate the possible options:

a. Keep ICD submission to WHA to 2015 as originally planned and implementation / adoption date may be free by any Member State (current position – no change).

b. Postpone submission to WHA to a later year to allow longer time for field trials and other transition preparations.

[…]

In conclusion:

(a) WHO Secretariat could produce an ICD 2015 ready including Mortality and Morbidity Linearizations, Reference Guide and Index with the appropriate resolution to go to the World Health Assembly. This timeframe, however, is extremely tight for paying due diligence to the work especially in terms of: appropriate consultations with expert groups; and sufficient time for field testing in multiple countries and settings, and carrying out the resulting edits

(b) If the timeline is advanced to 2016, there will be more time to have ICD 2016 version with more translations and incorporations of some field tests results.

(c) If the timeline is advanced to 2017, ICD 2017 will be ready with most Field Test results incorporated and maintenance scheme tested.

[…]

If WHO/ICD-11 Revision Steering Group does elect to postpone submission for WHA approval until May 2017, dissemination of ICD-11 may not be scheduled before 2018.

Once approved and released, adoption of ICD-11 won’t happen overnight. It may take several years before WHO Member States adopt ICD-11. Low resource and developing countries may also take longer to prepare for and transition to the new edition.

Note for US readers: According to Page 3332 of DHSS Office of Secretary Final Rule document (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations):

“…We [ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee] discussed waiting to adopt the ICD-11 code set in the August 22, 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 49805)…

“…However, work cannot begin on developing the necessary U.S. clinical modification to the ICD-11 diagnosis codes or the ICD-11 companion procedure codes until ICD-11 is officially released. Development and testing of a clinical modification to ICD-11 to make it usable in the United States will take an estimated additional 5 to 6 years. We estimated that the earliest projected date to begin rulemaking for implementation of a U.S. clinical modification of ICD-11 would be the year 2020.” [7]

This projection, in early 2009, would have been based on the assumption that ICD-11 was anticipated to be finalized and submitted for WHA Approval by 2014 (now potentially shifting to 2017).

An additional two year delay in the finalization of the ICD-11 code sets would likely impact on the development process for a clinical modification of ICD-11 for US specific use, kicking adaptation and implementation of an ICD-11-CM even further down the road.

+++
This slide presentation, below, was uploaded to Slideshare on September 9 by Dr Bedirhan Üstün, Coordinator, Classification, Terminology and Standards, World Health Organization, and also sets out the postponement options now under consideration:

Slide presentation: World Health Organization Classifications, Terminologies, Standards

ICD Revision: Quality Safety Meeting 2013 September 9-10

Where are we? What remains to be done? Shall we have ICD WHA submission in 2015 or later?

http://www.slideshare.net/ustunb/icd-2013-qs-tag-26027668

Slide 29:

Ustun 29rule

Slide 30:

Ustun 30rule

Slide 34:

Ustun 34rule

Slide 35: [WHA Approval – options under consideration]

Ustun 35rule
+++

References

1. Agenda Item No. 25: Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and Involvement of Psychology International Union of Psychological Science Committee on International Relations Action, March 28–30, 2008 IUPsyS Mar 08 Agenda Item 25 ICD-10

2. Letter Saxena, WHO, to Ritchie, IUPsyS (International Union for Psychological Science), August 2007 Exhibit 1 WHO Letter Aug 07

3. Dr Geoffrey Reed, Ph.D., May 2009, personal correspondence.

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

5. Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities, Twenty-second Session 4-6 September 2013, Items for discussion and decision: Item 8 of the provisional agenda, 3 September 2013 Full document in PDF format

6. Slide presentation: ICD Revision: Where are we? Bedirhan Ustun, World Health Organization Classifications, Terminologies, Standards, ICD Revision: Quality Safety Meeting 2013, September 9-10, 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/ustunb/icd-2013-qs-tag-26027668

7. DHSS Office of Secretary Final Rule document (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations), Page 3332.

ICD-11 Beta draft and Bodily Distress Disorders; Per Fink and Bodily Distress Syndrome: Parts One and Two

ICD-11 Beta draft and Bodily Distress Disorders; Per Fink and Bodily Distress Syndrome Parts One and Two

Post #222 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2Dz

Caveats: The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is not a static document: it is a work in progress, subject to daily edits and revisions, to field test evaluation and to approval by Topic Advisory Group Managing Editors, the ICD Revision Steering Group and WHO classification experts. The current draft may differ to the information in this report.

Part One

On January 6, I posted a brief update on proposals for the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders based on what can be seen in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform and on a book chapter by Professor, Sir David Goldberg. [1]

Professor Goldberg chairs the working group for revision of the mental health chapter of ICD-1o-PHC, the abridged, primary care version of ICD-10.

For the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders sections for ICD-11, a WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders has been assembled.

Professor Francis Creed (also a member of the DSM-5 Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders Work Group) is a member of this WHO working group, which is chaired by Professor Oye Gureje.

An April 2011 announcement by Stony Brook Medical Center states that Dr Joan E. Broderick, PhD had been appointed to the WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders and that the first meeting of the group (said to consist of 17 international behavioral health professionals) was expected to be held in June 2011, in Madrid.

WHO has not published a list of  members of this working group or any progress reports and the names and affiliations of the 14 other members are unknown, so I am unable to confirm whether Professor Per Fink is a member of the group, which reports to the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders.

ICD-11 and Bodily Distress Disorders

ICD-11 is currently scheduled for completion in 2015/16. When viewing the public version of the Beta drafting platform please bear in mind the ICD-11 Revision Caveats: that the Beta draft is a work in progress, updated daily, is incomplete, may contain errors and is subject to change; not all proposals may be approved by the ICD-11 Revision Steering Committee or WHO classification experts, or retained following analysis of ICD-11 and ICD-11-PHC field trials.

The Bodily Distress Disorders section of ICD-11 Beta draft Chapter 5 can be found here:

Foundation View: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1472866636
Linearization View: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1472866636

As the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform stands at the time of compiling this report, the existing ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders are proposed to be subsumed under or replaced by Bodily Distress Disorders, and Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere.

The following proposed ICD-11 categories are listed as child categories under parent term, Bodily Distress Disorders, and Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere:

EC5 Mild bodily distress disorder
EC6 Moderate bodily distress disorder
EC7 Severe bodily distress disorder
EC8 Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere

No Definition or any other Content Model parameters have been populated for the proposed categories EC5, EC6 and EC7, which are new entities to ICD. (EC8 is a legacy category from ICD-10.)

Note that the sorting codes assigned to categories are subject to frequent change as chapters are reorganized.

From the information currently displaying in the Beta draft, it is not possible to determine:

• how ICD-11 proposes to define Bodily Distress Disorders;

• what diagnostic criteria are being proposed;

whether diagnostic criteria would be based on a requirement for excessive or disproportionate psychological and behavioral characteristics in response to distressing somatic symptoms, such as illness anxiety, symptom focusing, catastrophising, maladaptive coping strategies, avoidance behavior or misattribution; or based on somatic symptom counts, or specific symptom clusters, or number of bodily systems affected, or a combination of these;

how the three Severity Specifiers: Mild, Moderate and Severe would be categorized;

• how the three Severities would be assessed for within primary and secondary care;

whether ICD-11’s proposed Bodily Distress Disorder construct is intended to mirror or incorporate DSM-5’s Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) construct, in line with ICD-11/DSM-5 harmonization, or

whether it is intended to mirror or incorporate Per Fink’s Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) construct, or to combine elements from both;

whether the Bodily Distress Disorder construct is proposed only to be applied to patients with distressing ‘medically unexplained somatic symptoms’ (MUS), or the so-called ‘Functional somatic syndromes’ (FSS), if the patient is considered to also meet the BDD criteria, or

whether it is proposed to be inclusive of patients with distressing somatic symptoms in the presence of diagnosed illness and general medical conditions, if the patient is considered to also meet the criteria;

• whether the Bodily Distress Disorder construct is proposed to be inclusive of parents or caregivers perceived as encouraging maintenance of sick role behavior or over-involved.

whether the Bodily Distress Disorder construct is proposed to be inclusive of children;

whether it is proposed that all or selected of the following: Neurasthenia and Fatigue syndrome (F48.0), Chronic fatigue syndrome (indexed to G93.3 in ICD-10; classified in ICD-11 Beta draft as an ICD Title term in Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system), IBS (K58), and Fibromyalgia (M79.7) should be reclassified under Bodily Distress Disorders;

• whether the Bodily Distress Disorder construct is proposed to subsume ICD-10’s Hypochondriacal disorder with somatic symptoms or incorporate this entity under Illness Anxiety Disorder for ICD-11.

(For ICD-11, ICD-10’s Hypochondriacal disorder [F45.2] is currently proposed to be renamed to Illness Anxiety Disorder and located underANXIETY AND FEAR-RELATED DISORDERS.)

 • what ICD-11 proposes to do with ICD-10’s Neurasthenia;

(ICD-10’s Chapter V Neurasthenia [F48.0] is no longer listed in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft. For ICD-11-PHC, the primary care version of ICD-11, the proposal is for the term Neurasthenia to be eliminated. Since terms used in ICD-11-PHC require corresponding terms in the main classification, the intention may be to eliminate Neurasthenia from the main version, or subsume under another term.) [2]

All that can be determined from the Beta draft is that these earlier ICD-11 Beta draft Somatoform Disorders categories appear proposed to be subsumed under or replaced with the new BDD categories, EC5, EC6 and EC7, set out above:

Somatization disorder [F45.0 in ICD-10]
Undifferentiated somatoform disorder [F45.1 in ICD-10]
Somatoform autonomic dysfunction [F45.3 in ICD-10]
Persistent somatoform pain disorder [F45.4 in ICD-10]
    > Persistent somatoform pain disorder
    > Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors [Not in ICD-10]
Other somatoform disorders [F45.8 in ICD-10]
Somatoform disorder, unspecified [F45.9 in ICD-10]

I have previously reported that for ICD-11-PHC, the proposal, last year, was for a new disorder section called Bodily distress disorders, under which would sit new category Bodily stress [sic] syndrome.

This category is proposed for the ICD-11 primary care version to include “milder somatic symptom disorders” as well as “DSM-5’s Complex somatic symptom disorder” and would replace “medically unexplained somatic symptoms.” [2]

In a future post (Part Three of this report), I shall be discussing emerging proposals for the ICD-11 construct, Bodily Distress Disorders, which may serve to fill in some of the gaps.

In the meantime, since it is unclear whether and to what extent the ICD-11 Bodily Distress Disorders category is proposed to mirror or incorporate the Bodily Distress Syndrome construct developed by Per Fink et al, Aarhus, Denmark, I am providing some material on Bodily Distress Syndrome in Part Two

%d bloggers like this: