BMJ  2003;326:1130 (24 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1130

Information in practice

Use of Read codes in diabetes management in a south London primary care group: implications for establishing disease registers

¹ Battersea Research Group, Bolingbroke Hospital, London SW11 6HN, ² Primary Care Research Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London, London WC1H 9QU

Objective To establish current practice in the use of Read codes for diabetes.

Design Cross sectional study.

Setting 17 practices in the Battersea primary care group in southwest London.

Data sources Computerised medical records.

Main outcome measures Number of codes in use in all practices; variation in the use of codes between practices; and prevalence of Read code use in diabetic patients.

Results At least 9 separate Read code groupings and 25 individual diabetes codes were in use in the 17 general practices. Only one Read code (C10, diabetes mellitus) and its subcodes was being used in all 17 practices, but its use varied from 14% to 98% of patients with diabetes. The use of other key Read codes for monitoring the care of patients with diabetes also varied widely between practices; for example, < 20% of practices used the code for the location of care. Less than half of patients (45%) with diabetes had their type of diabetes coded, and even fewer (21%) had measures such as the examination of the retina coded.

Conclusions The use of Read codes for diabetes needs to be standardised and coding levels improved if valid diabetic registers are to be constructed and the quality of care is to be monitored effectively. Until all patients with diabetes have the C10 Read code recorded, clinicians will have to use a wide range of Read codes and prescribing data to ensure that diabetes registers are complete.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Effect of the quality and outcomes framework on diabetes care in the United Kingdom: retrospective cohort study

Melanie Calvert, Aparna Shankar, Richard J McManus, Helen Lester, and Nick Freemantle
BMJ 2009 338: b1870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Why clinical information standards matter

Martin Gardner
BMJ 2003 326: 1101-1102. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Diabetic patients' records are missing the C10 Read code
BMJ 2003 326: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Calvert, M., Shankar, A., McManus, R. J, Lester, H., Freemantle, N. (2009). Effect of the quality and outcomes framework on diabetes care in the United Kingdom: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 338: b1870-b1870 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Millett, C., Netuveli, G., Saxena, S., Majeed, A. (2009). Impact of Pay for Performance on Ethnic Disparities in Intermediate Outcomes for Diabetes: A Longitudinal Study. Diabetes Care 32: 404-409 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Majeed, A., Car, J., Sheikh, A. (2008). Accuracy and completeness of electronic patient records in primary care. Fam Pract 25: 213-214 [Full text]  
• Bebb, C., Coupland, C., Stewart, J., Kendrick, D., Madeley, R., Sturrock, N., Burden, R., for the Nottingham Diabetes Blood Pressure Study, (2007). Practice and patient characteristics related to blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: a cross-sectional study. Fam Pract 24: 547-554 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Millett, C., Gray, J., Saxena, S., Netuveli, G., Majeed, A. (2007). Impact of a pay-for-performance incentive on support for smoking cessation and on smoking prevalence among people with diabetes. CMAJ 176: 1705-1710 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Calvert, M. J, McManus, R. J, Freemantle, N. (2007). The management of people with type 2 diabetes with hypoglycaemic agents in primary care: retrospective cohort study. Fam Pract 24: 224-229 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gray, J., Millett, C., O'Sullivan, C., Omar, R. Z, Majeed, A. (2006). Association of age, sex and deprivation with quality indicators for diabetes: population-based cross sectional survey in primary care. JRSM 99: 576-581 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Brook, C. E., Bath, P. A. (2006). An examination of the levels of confidence that consultants have in routinely collected clinical information. Health Informatics Journal 12: 49-64 [Abstract]  
• Sanderson, H., Adams, T., Budden, M., Hoare, C. (2004). Lessons from the central Hampshire electronic health record pilot project: evaluation of the electronic health record for supporting patient care and secondary analysis. BMJ 328: 875-878 [Full text]  
• Gardner, M. (2003). Why clinical information standards matter. BMJ 326: 1101-1102 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

GP2GP

Neil R Paul
bmj.com, 23 May 2003 [Full text]

Electronic record linkage and prevalence of diabetes

Ritchie McAlpine, et al.
bmj.com, 29 May 2003 [Full text]

Re: Electronic record linkage and prevalence of diabetes

Jeremy P Gray
bmj.com, 29 May 2003 [Full text]

Diabetes and the use of Read codes in the new quality and outcomes framework

Clive L Morrison
bmj.com, 30 May 2003 [Full text]

Standards for Coding in General Practice

Libby Morris, et al.
bmj.com, 2 Jun 2003 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>