The invisible cost of pain management by the current International Classification of Diseases coding system: a study in a tertiary care inpatient setting.

ABSTRACT: The International Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) is applied worldwide for public health data collection among other use cases. However, the current version of the ICD ( ICD-10 ), to which the reimbursement system is linked in many countries, does not represent chronic pain properly. This study aims to compare the ICD-10 with the ICD-11 in hospitalized patients in terms of specificity, clinical utility, and reimbursement for pain management. The medical records of hospitalized patients consulted for pain management at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, were reviewed, and all pain-related diagnoses were coded into ICD-10 and ICD-11 . The data of 397 patients showed unspecified pain was coded 78% in the ICD-10 and only 0.5% in the ICD-11 version. The difference gap in the proportion of unspecified pain between the 2 versions is wider than in the outpatient setting. The 3 most common codes for ICD-10 were other chronic pain, low back pain, and pain in limb. The 3 most common codes for ICD-11 were chronic cancer pain, chronic peripheral neuropathic pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. As in many other countries, no pain-related ICD-10 codes were coded for routine reimbursement. The simulated reimbursement fee remained the same when adding 397 pain-related codings, even if the cost of pain management, such as cost of labor, existed. Compared with the ICD-10 version, the ICD-11 is more specific and makes pain diagnoses more visible. Thus, shifting from ICD-10 to ICD-11 has the potential to improve both the quality of care and the reimbursement for pain management.

Effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in open gynecologic oncology surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of applying the recommended enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol compared with our usual care in women with gynecologic malignancy undergoing elective laparotomy. METHODS: From June 2020 to May 2021, 93 women with gynecologic cancers (cervix, endometrium, and ovary) undergoing elective laparotomy at our institution were randomly assigned into an intervention group (ERAS protocol, 46 women) or control group (usual care, 47 women). For the intervention group, each woman was brought through the pre-specified ERAS protocol starting from preoperative counseling to postoperative management. For the control group, participants underwent routine standard care. The primary outcomes were length of hospital stay and postoperative pain. RESULTS: The intervention group demonstrated shorter hospital stay by 20 h (47.48 h vs 67.17 h, P = 0.02) with lower postoperative pain score at postoperative day 0 (1.58 vs 4.00, P < 0.01) and day 1 (1.00 vs 2.67, P < 0.01) while having decreased opioid consumption (P < 0.01). The intervention group also had faster recovery of gastrointestinal function. Overall, good compliance to most of the ERAS pathway domains was obtained. CONCLUSION: The ERAS protocol demonstrates benefits on shortening hospital stay, reducing pain, and bowel function recovery without increasing complications in our population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04201626) on December 3, 2019. Initial participant enrollment began on June 1, 2020. Access through URL of the registration site: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04201626?cond=ERAS&cntry=TH&draw=2&rank=3.