ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026
Why is the data quality of hospital morbidity so heterogeneous? A nationwide survey of Portuguese clinical coders.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHospital morbidity data are used for hospital reimbursement in many countries and are also critical for epidemiological profiling and health planning, both of which depend on data quality. Exploring the clinical coders' perspective is crucial for implementing targeted interventions in this field.
objectiveTo identify the main factors influencing the quality of health registries, the coding process and data quality, from the perspective of clinical coders in Portugal.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide online survey of clinical coders, informed by prior focus groups and a literature review, to assess their perspectives on the quality of health records, the clinical coding process, and coded data.
resultsA total of 162 responses were obtained. Respondents primarily used electronic health records, including discharge notes, clinical diaries, and surgical reports. Common problems in health records included "copy-paste" practices (67%) and the use of unspecified acronyms (52%). Incomplete records, inconsistent information, and the lack of support affected coding quality. Half agreed that a reduction in the number of coders contributed to delays. Financial incentives for quality, software availability, and frequent internal audits were identified as priority measures to improve data quality.
conclusionThis study highlights the importance of clinical documentation for coding accuracy. Despite the use of electronic health records and the transition to ICD-10-CM/PCS, difficulties such as "copy-paste" practices and the use of unspecified acronyms persist. Continuous training, standardisation of documentation practices, and collaboration between clinical coders and other health professionals are essential to ensure coding accuracy. These problems and potential improvements may affect national policymaking and initiatives such as the European Health Data Space and international health prioritisation.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.