Task #11: Delivery of minor update proposals for NordDRG 2015
Unnecessary code pairs in the DG1 and ICD tables
|Target version:||Expert Group 2014|
|Case type:||Owner / responsible:||Nordic Casemix Centre|
|MDC:||Old forum status:|
National ID: CPK ID 548
The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (SOS) makes own definition tables parallel to the process at the Nordic Casemix Centre (NCC) and the current problem was discovered during routine comparison between SWE2014CC-SOS-PR02 (SOS version) and SWE2014PR0F (NCC version) in the autumn 2013.
In the SOS NordDRG version 2014 we deleted from the DG1 table a number of code pairs (see table below) that don’t exist in Sweden. We are not using codes on 3-digit level any more. They were officially deleted 2008/12/31 and should be removed from all the NordDRG tables five years after that date.
We also noticed that there are code pairs in the ICD table in the NCC version that we excluded in the SOS version because they have no grouping properties (see table below).
Martti commented: ”Technically a codepair can be used even when it is not listed in the classification tables. Therefore properties existing for pairs in common version are included here. If not needed should be reported on the Forum and eventually removed!”
We think that it is unnecessary to have irrelevant code pairs in the ICD table and they should be deleted.
NPK, Sweden – 2014-02-12
The code pairs (with all their properties) in the upper table above are deleted from the DG1 table in the NCC version. The code pairs in the lower table above are deleted from the ICD table in the NCC version.
The changes are specified in .
#1 Updated by Martti Virtanen about 5 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
2014-03-17 Martti Virtanen
None of the listed pairs is included in the current version of NordDRG. These were probably included in earlier versions but as stated By Mats they have no specified additional propeties (in comparison to the individual codes) and are not needed. The Swedish version has no code pairs in the ICD-table but it still has some defined properties to specific pairs. For these the comment that the pairs can still be used is in principle still valdi though in practise even this is questionable.
See on the more extended discussion in case #296