Objective. To examine potential sources of errors at each step of the described inpatient International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding process. Data Sources/Study Setting. The use of disease codes from the ICD has expanded from classifying morbidity and mortality information for statistical purposes to diverse sets of applications in research, health care policy, and health care finance. By describing a brief history of ICD coding, detailing the process for assigning codes, identifying where errors can be introduced into the process, and reviewing methods for examining code accuracy, we help code users more systematically evaluate code accuracy for their particular applications. Study Design/Methods. We summarize the inpatient ICD diagnostic coding process from patient admission to diagnostic code assignment. We examine potential sources of errors at each step and offer code users a tool for systematically evaluating code accuracy. Principle Findings. Main error sources along the ''patient trajectory'' include amount and quality of information at admission, communication among patients and providers, the clinician's knowledge and experience with the illness, and the clinician's attention to detail. Main error sources along the ''paper trail'' include variance in the electronic and written records, coder training and experience, facility quality-control efforts, and unintentional and intentional coder errors, such as misspecification, unbundling, and upcoding. Conclusions. By clearly specifying the code assignment process and heightening their awareness of potential error sources, code users can better evaluate the applicability and limitations of codes for their particular situations. ICD codes can then be used in the most appropriate ways.

PURPOSE Although concordance by race and sex in physician-patient relationships has been associated with patient ratings of better care, mechanisms through which concordance leads to better outcomes remains unknown. This investigation examined (1) whether patients' perceptions of similarity to their physicians predicted their ratings of quality of care and (2) whether perceived similarity was infl uenced by racial and sexual concordance and the physician's communication. METHODSThe research design was a cross-sectional study with 214 patients and 29 primary care physicians from 10 private and public outpatient clinics. Measures included postvisit patient ratings of similarity to the physician; satisfaction, trust, and intent to adhere; and audiotape analysis of patient involvement and physicians' patient-centered communication.RESULTS Factor analysis revealed 2 dimensions of similarity, personal (in beliefs, values) and ethnic (in race, community). Black and white patients in racially concordant interactions reported more personal and ethnic similarity (mean score, 87.6 and 78.8, respectively, on a 100-point scale) to their physicians than did minority patients (mean score, 81.4 and 41.2, respectively) and white patients (mean score, 84.4 and 41.9, respectively) in racially discordant encounters. In multivariable models, perceived personal similarity was predicted by the patient's age, education, and physicians' patient-centered communication, but not by racial or sexual concordance. Perceived personal similarity and physicians' patient-centered communication predicted patients' trust, satisfaction, and intent to adhere. CONCLUSIONSThe physician-patient relationship is strengthened when patients see themselves as similar to their physicians in personal beliefs, values, and communication. Perceived personal similarity is associated with higher ratings of trust, satisfaction, and intention to adhere. Race concordance is the primary predictor of perceived ethnic similarity, but several factors affect perceived personal similarity, including physicians' use of patient-centered communication.

African Americans and Latinos use services that require a doctor's order at lower rates than do whites. Racial bias and patient preferences contribute to disparities, but their effects appear small. Communication during the medical interaction plays a central role in decision making about subsequent interventions and health behaviors. Research has shown that doctors have poorer communication with minority patients than with others, but problems in doctor-patient communication have received little attention as a potential cause, a remediable one, of health disparities. We evaluate the evidence that poor communication is a cause of disparities and propose some remedies drawn from the communication sciences.

No abstract