Emergency department coding of bicycle and pedestrian injuries during the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10.

BACKGROUND: The international classification of diseases version 10 (ICD-10) uses alphanumeric expanded codes and external cause of injury codes (E-codes). OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability and validity of emergency department (ED) coders in applying E-codes in ICD-9 and -10. METHODS: Bicycle and pedestrian injuries were identified from the ED information system from one period before and two periods after transition from ICD-9 to -10 coding. Overall, 180 randomly selected bicycle and pedestrian injury charts were reviewed as the reference standard (RS). Original E-codes assigned by ED coders (ICD-9 in 2001 and ICD-10 in 2004 and 2007) were compared with charts (validity) and also to ICD-9 and -10 codes assigned from RS chart review, to each case by an independent (IND) coder (reliability). Sensitivity, specificity, simple, and chance-corrected agreements (κ statistics) were calculated. RESULTS: Sensitivity of E-coding bicycle injuries by the IND coder in comparison with the RS ranged from 95.1% (95% CI 86.3 to 99.0) to 100% (95% CI 94.0 to 100.0) for both ICD-9 and -10. Sensitivity of ED coders in E-coding bicycle injuries ranged from 90.2% (95% CI 79.8 to 96.3) to 96.7% (95% CI 88.5 to 99.6). The sensitivity estimates for the IND coder ranged from 25.0% (95% CI 14.7 to 37.9) to 45.0% (95% CI 32.1 to 58.4) for pedestrian injuries for both ICD-9 and -10. CONCLUSION: Bicycle injuries are coded in a reliable and valid manner; however, pedestrian injuries are often miscoded as falls. These results have important implications for injury surveillance research.

Bicycle helmet use four years after the introduction of helmet legislation in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Bicycle helmets reduce fatal and non-fatal head and face injuries. This study evaluated the effect of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation targeted at those less than 18 years old on helmet use for all ages in Alberta. METHODS: Two comparable studies were conducted two years before and four years after the introduction of helmet legislation in Alberta in 2002. Bicyclists were observed in randomly selected sites in Calgary and Edmonton and eight smaller communities from June to October. Helmet wearing and rider characteristics were recorded by trained observers. Poisson regression adjusting for clustering by site was used to obtain helmet prevalence (HP) and prevalence ratio (PR) (2006 vs. 2000) estimates. RESULTS: There were 4002 bicyclists observed in 2000 and 5365 in 2006. Overall, HP changed from 75% to 92% among children, 30% to 63% among adolescents and 52% to 55% among adults. Controlling for city, location, companionship, neighborhood age proportion <18, socioeconomic status, and weather conditions, helmet use increased 29% among children (PR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.20-1.39), over 2-fold among adolescents (PR 2.12; 95% CI: 1.75-2.56), and 14% among adults: (PR = 1.14; CI: 1.02-1.27). CONCLUSIONS: Bicycle helmet legislation was associated with a greater increase in helmet use among the target age group (<18). Though HP increased over 2-fold among adolescents to an estimated 63% in 2006, this percentage was approximately 30% lower than among children <13.

Factors associated with incorrect bicycle helmet use.

BACKGROUND: Incorrect bicycle helmet use increases head injury risk. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the patterns of incorrect helmet use based on unobtrusive field observations. METHODS: Two observational surveys conducted in Alberta in 2000 and 2006 captured information on cyclist characteristics, including correct helmet use. Prevalence of correct helmet use was compared across multiple factors: age, gender, riding companionship, and environmental factors such as riding location, neighbourhood median family income, and region. Poisson regression analysis was used to relate predictor variables to the prevalence of incorrect helmet use, adjusting for clustering by site of observation. RESULTS: Among helmeted cyclists (n=5862), 15.3% were wearing their helmet incorrectly or were using a non-bicycle helmet. Children (53%) and adults (51%) tended to wear their helmet too far back, while adolescents tended not have their straps fastened (48%). Incorrect helmet use declined approximately 50% over the study period for children and adolescents, but 76% (95% CI 68% to 82%) in adults. Children were 1.8 times more likely to use their helmets incorrectly in 2000 compared with adults, but this effect increased to 3.9 (95% CI 2.9 to 5.4) in 2006. Adolescents were more likely to use their helmets incorrectly in 2006 compared with adults (prevalence ratio 2.76; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.02). Children and adolescents cycling alone, compared with adults cycling alone, cycling at non-school sites and cycling in Edmonton, was associated with incorrect helmet use. CONCLUSIONS: Important factors not previously identified were associated with incorrect bicycle helmet use. This information can be used to target interventions to increase correct use.

A systematic review of correct bicycle helmet use: how varying definitions and study quality influence the results.

BACKGROUND: Bicycle helmets effectively reduce the risk of bicycle-related head injuries and trauma; however, they must fit properly to be effective. Little is known about the prevalence of correctly worn helmets and factors associated with proper helmet use. OBJECTIVE: To examine proper bicycle helmet use through a systematic review. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of electronic medical databases were performed, and completed by grey literature and reference list checks to identify eligible studies. Studies eligible for inclusion had to involve cyclists and report on the prevalence of correct or incorrect helmet use. Two reviewers independently selected studies and data were extracted regarding the prevalence and factors influencing proper helmet wearing of cyclists. RESULTS: An inclusive search strategy led to 2285 prescreened citations; 11 of the studies were finally included in the review. Overall, correct helmet use varied from 46% to 100%, depending on the criteria used by researchers to define proper helmet use; stricter criteria reduced the proportion of properly worn helmets. Adulthood, female sex and educational interventions were associated with correct helmet use in some studies. Self-reported poor helmet fit (OR = 1.96; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.75), posterior positioning of helmet (OR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.26) and helmet loss in crash (OR = 3.25; 95% CI 1.82 to 5.75) increased the risk of head injury. In addition, educational programmes on helmet use in schools increased correct helmet use among schoolchildren. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review outlines the current state of the literature including the variability in research methodology and definitions used to study proper helmet-wearing behaviour among cyclists.

Effectiveness of bicycle helmet legislation to increase helmet use: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Head injuries related to bicycle use are common and can be serious. They can be prevented or reduced in severity with helmet use; however, education has resulted in modest helmet use in most developed countries. Helmet legislation has been proposed as a method to increase helmet wearing; while this social intervention is thought to be effective, no systematic review has been performed. OBJECTIVES: This review evaluates the scientific evidence for helmet use following legislation to identify the effectiveness of legislative interventions to increase bicycle helmet use among all age groups. SEARCH STRATEGY: Comprehensive searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, British Education Index, LILACS Database, TRIS (Transport Research Information Service), the grey literature, reference lists, and communication with authors was performed to identify eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies for this review were community based investigations including cohort studies, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies, non-equivalent control group studies Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers extracted the data regarding the percentage of helmet use before and after legislation from each study. Individual and pooled odds ratios were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 86 prescreened articles, 25 were potentially relevant to the topic and 11 were finally included in the review. Of 11 studies, eight were published articles, two were published reports, and one was an unpublished article. One additional survey was incorporated following personal communication with the author. While the baseline rate of helmet use among these studies varied between 4% and 59%, after legislation this range changed to 37% and 91%. Helmet wearing proportions increased less than 10% in one study, 10-30% in four studies, and more than 30% in seven studies. While the effectiveness of bicycle helmet legislation varied (n = 11 studies; OR range: 1.2-22), all studies demonstrated higher proportions of helmet use following legislation, particularly when the law was targeted to a specific age group. CONCLUSIONS: Legislation increased helmet use among cyclists, particularly younger age groups and those with low pre-intervention helmet wearing proportions. These results support legislative interventions in populations without helmet legislation.