RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 P141 How accurate is clinical coding in recently integrated sexual health services?
JF Sexually Transmitted Infections
JO Sex Transm Infect
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
SP A62
OP A62
DO 10.1136/sextrans-2015-052126.184
VO 91
IS Suppl 1
A1 Athavan Umaipalan
A1 Laura Parry
A1 Lalitha Kiritharan
A1 Heather Anderson
A1 Liat Sarner
A1 Margaret Portman
YR 2015
UL http://sti.bmj.com/content/91/Suppl_1/A62.2.abstract
AB Background/introduction Clinical coding in England provides monitoring data for Public Health England via the Genitourinary Medicine Clinic Activity Dataset (GUMCAD) and Sexual and Reproductive Health Activity (SRHAD) returns. In London, this data is also used to reflect activity for the Integrated Sexual Health Tariff (ISHT) which may form the basis for payment in future. Integration of contraception and GUM services presents a challenge in maintaining accuracy of clinical coding. Aim(s)/objectives To audit the accuracy of SHAPPT, SRHAD and SRH coding in a multi-site integrated sexual health service, comparing sites traditionally providing GUM services vs contraception. Methods Local standards were agreed; 95% of patients should have accurate SHAPPT, SRHAD and SRH codes. 229 records from 2 GUM sites and 53 from 1 contraception site were audited from attendances between May and July 2014. View this table: Discussion/conclusion As expected, the accuracy of coding reflected the traditional nature of the sites. The locally set standard of 95% was only reached on one occasion. Missing SRH codes alone would equate to lost income of £1259 from 77 visits if the ISHT was in place. Staff training and weekly capture and correction of missing HIV codes through targeted email reminders has resulted in an improvement in coding.