Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Computer or Manual Coding — Is There a Difference?

Computer or Manual Coding — Is There a Difference? Advances in computer technology have now made it possible to code diseases and operations by computer as compared to the present manual system. In this study the speed and accuracy of a computerised coding system (3M Codefinder) was compared with the manual method on a sample of 90 medical records processed by two senior Medical Record Administrators (MRAs) with similar coding experience. The computer method took an average of 20.9 seconds longer to code a record than the manual method. A review of disease and operation codes indicated that both coders had an error rate of around 20%. Errors were mainly due to the coder's judgement, which resulted in under-coding or incorrect coding. However, a small proportion of computer coder's errors were caused by software problems, the most common being inconsistent prompting for the Place of Occurrence Code. Thus, the manual method has a moderate speed advantage over the computer while being comparable in terms of accuracy. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian Medical Record Journal SAGE

Computer or Manual Coding — Is There a Difference?

Australian Medical Record Journal , Volume 17 (3): 4 – Sep 1, 1987

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/computer-or-manual-coding-is-there-a-difference-EMMLOZhSXA

References (4)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© 1987 Health Information Management Association of Australia Limited
ISSN
0817-3907
eISSN
1833-3575
DOI
10.1177/183335838701700304
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Advances in computer technology have now made it possible to code diseases and operations by computer as compared to the present manual system. In this study the speed and accuracy of a computerised coding system (3M Codefinder) was compared with the manual method on a sample of 90 medical records processed by two senior Medical Record Administrators (MRAs) with similar coding experience. The computer method took an average of 20.9 seconds longer to code a record than the manual method. A review of disease and operation codes indicated that both coders had an error rate of around 20%. Errors were mainly due to the coder's judgement, which resulted in under-coding or incorrect coding. However, a small proportion of computer coder's errors were caused by software problems, the most common being inconsistent prompting for the Place of Occurrence Code. Thus, the manual method has a moderate speed advantage over the computer while being comparable in terms of accuracy.

Journal

Australian Medical Record JournalSAGE

Published: Sep 1, 1987

There are no references for this article.