PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10138776

The National Coding Centre--an overview.

P J Watson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Medical Record Administrators have been aware of the need for a National Coding Authority in Australia for many years. With the establishment of the National Reference Centre for Reference Centre for Classification in Health in 1991 and the subsequent call for tenders for the establishment of a Coding Authority the movement to develop much needed standards, improve data and coding quality began to take shape. This paper outlines the lead up to the call for tenders, the terms of reference and objectives of the Coding Centre, the proposed staff, and the work program for the first three years.

Explore related subjects

Abstracting and IndexingAustraliaDiagnosis-Related GroupsInformation CentersMedical RecordsModels, OrganizationalNational Health ProgramsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P J Watson. 1993. The National Coding Centre--an overview.. https://doi.org/10.1177/183335839302300404

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Publication bias in gastroenterological research - a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the determinants of publication and whether publication bias occurred in gastroenterological research. METHODS: A random sample of abstracts submitted to DDW, the major GI meeting (1992-1995) was evaluated. The publication status was determined by database searches, complemented by a mailed survey to abstract authors. Determinants of publication were examined by Cox proportional hazards model and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample included abstracts on 326 controlled clinical trials (CCT), 336 other clinical research reports (OCR), and 174 basic science studies (BSS). 392 abstracts (47%) were published as full papers. Acceptance for presentation at the meeting was a strong predictor of subsequent publication for all research types (overall, 54% vs. 34%, OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.1). In the multivariate analysis, multi-center status was found to predict publication (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.6-4.9). There was no significant association between direction of study results and subsequent publication. Studies were less likely to be published in high impact journals if the results were not statistically significant (OR 0.5, 95 CI 95% 0.3-0.6). The author survey identified lack of time or interest as the main reason for failure to publish. CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts which were selected for presentation at the DDW are more likely to be followed by full publications. The statistical significance of the study results was not found to be a predictor of publication but influences the chances for high impact publication.

Abstracting and Indexing↗