No abstract

This mapping between ICD and AIS provides a comprehensive, expert-designed solution for analysts to bridge the data gap between the injury descriptions provided in hospital codes (ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM) and injury severity codes (AIS08). By applying consistent rules from both the ICD and AIS taxonomies, the expert panel created these definitive maps, which are the only ones endorsed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM). Initial validation upheld the quality of these maps for the estimation of AIS severity, but future work should include verification of these maps for MAIS and ISS estimations with large data sets. These ICD-AIS maps will support data analysis from databases with injury information classified in these 2 different systems and open new doors for the investigation of injury from traumatic events using large injury data sets.

Robust maps of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM injury codes to AIS severity categories (3+ versus <3) were successfully created from an in-person panel discussion and electronic survey. These maps provide a link between the common ICD diagnostic lexicons and the AIS severity coding system and are of value to injury researchers, public health scientists, and epidemiologists using large databases without available AIS coding.

Objective:The objective of the mapping project was to develop an expert derived map between the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) clinical modifications (CM) and the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) to be able to relate AIS severity to ICD coded data road traffic collision data in EU datasets. The maps were developed to enable the identification of serious AIS3+ injury and provide details of the mapping process for assumptions to be made about injury severity from mass datasets. This article describes in detail the mapping process of the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005, Update 2008 (AIS08) codes to identify injury with an AIS severity of 3 or more (AIS3+ severity) to determine 'serious' (MAIS3+) road traffic injuries.Methods: Over 19,000 ICD codes were mapped from the following injury categories; injury ICD-9-CM (Chapter 17) codes between '800 and 999.9' and injury ICD-10-CM (Chapter 19) 'S' and 'T' prefixed codes were reviewed and mapped to an AIS08 category and then relate the severity to three groups; AIS3+, AIS <=2 and AIS 9 (no-map). The mapping was undertaken by ICD coding experts and certified AIS specialists from Europe, North America, Australia and Canada in face-to-face working groups and subsequent webinars between May 2014 and October 2015. During the process, the business rules were documented to define guidelines for the mapping process and enable inter-rater discrepancies to be resolved. Results:In total 2,504 ICD-9-CM codes were mapped to the AIS, of which 780 (31%) were assigned an AIS3+ severity. For the16,508 ICD-10-CM mapped codes a total of 2,323 (14%) were assigned an AIS3+ severity. Some 17% (n=426) and 27% (n=4,485) of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes respectively were assigned to AIS9 (no-map) following the mapping process. It was evident there were 'problem' codes that could not be easily mapped to an AIS code to reflect severity. Problem maps affect the specificity of the map and severity when used to translate historical data in large datasets. Conclusions:The Association for the Advancement in Automotive Medicine, AAAM-endorsed expert-derived map offers a unique tool to road safety researchers to establish the number of MAIS3+ serious injuries occurring on the roads. The detailed process offered in this paper will enable researchers to understand the decision making and identify limitations when using the AIS08/ICD map on country-specific data. The results could inform protocols for dealing with problem codes to enable country comparisons of MAIS3+ serious injury rates.

Postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) has been integrated into the practice of many forensic pathologists. To evaluate the utility of PMCT in supplementing and/or supplanting medicolegal autopsy, we conducted a prospective double‐blind comparison of abnormal findings reported by the autopsy pathologist with those reported by a radiologist reviewing the PMCT. We reviewed 890 cases: 167 with blunt force injury (BFI), 63 with pediatric trauma (under 5 years), 203 firearm injuries, and 457 drug poisoning deaths. Autopsy and radiology reports were coded using the Abbreviated Injury Scale and abnormal findings and cause of death (COD) were compared for congruence in consensus conferences with novel pathologists and radiologists. Overall sensitivity for recognizing abnormal findings was 71% for PMCT and 74.6% for autopsy. Sensitivities for PMCT/autopsy were 74%/73.1% for BFI, 61.5%/71.4% for pediatric trauma, 84.9%/83.7% for firearm injuries, and 56.5%/66.4% for drug poisoning deaths. COD assigned by reviewing PMCT/autopsy was correct in 88%/95.8% of BFI cases, 99%/99.5% of firearm fatalities, 82.5%/98.5% of pediatric trauma deaths, and 84%/100% of drug poisoning deaths of individuals younger than 50. Both autopsy and PMCT were imperfect in recognizing injuries. However, both methods identified the most important findings and are sufficient to establish COD in cases of BFI, pediatric trauma, firearm injuries and drug poisoning in individuals younger than 50. Ideally, all forensic pathologists would have access to a CT scanner and a consulting radiologist. This would allow a flexible approach that meets the diagnostic needs of each case and best serves decedents' families and other stakeholders.