Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Aims To determine the effectiveness of self-audit tools designed to detect miscoding, misclassification and misdiagnosis of diabetes in primary care. Methods We developed six searches to identify people with diabetes with potential classification errors. The search results were automatically ranked from most to least likely to have an underlying problem. Eight practices with a combined population of 72000 and diabetes prevalence 2.9% (n=2340) completed audit forms to verify whether additional information within the patients' medical record confirmed or refuted the problems identified. Results The searches identified 347 records, mean 42 per practice. Pre-audit 20% (n=69) had Type 1 diabetes, 70% (n=241) had Type 2 diabetes, 9% (n=30) had vague codes that were hard to classify, 2% (n=6) were not coded and one person was labelled as having gestational diabetes. Of records, 39.2% (n=136) had important errors: 10% (n=35) had coding errors; 12.1% (42) were misclassified; and 17.0% (59) misdiagnosed as having diabetes. Thirty-two per cent (n=22) of people with Type 2 diabetes (n=69) were misclassified as having Type 1 diabetes; 20% (n=48) of people with Type 2 diabetes (n=241) did not have diabetes; of the 30 patients with vague diagnostic terms, 50% had Type 2 diabetes, 20% had Type 1 diabetes and 20% did not have diabetes. Examples of misdiagnosis were found in all practices, misclassification in seven and miscoding in six. Conclusions Volunteer practices successfully used these self-audit tools. Approximately 40% of patients identified by computer searches (5.8% of people with diabetes) had errors; misdiagnosis is commonest, misclassification may affect treatment options and miscoding in omission from disease registers and the potential for reduced quality of care. © 2012 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine © 2012 Diabetes UK.

Original publication

DOI

10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03419.x

Type

Journal article

Journal

Diabetic Medicine

Publication Date

01/02/2012

Volume

29

Pages

181 - 189