Assessment of the Accuracy of Firearm Injury Intent Coding at 3 US Hospitals.

Importance: The absence of reliable hospital discharge data regarding the intent of firearm injuries (ie, whether caused by assault, accident, self-harm, legal intervention, or an act of unknown intent) has been characterized as a glaring gap in the US firearms data infrastructure.

Objective: To use incident-level information to assess the accuracy of intent coding in hospital data used for firearm injury surveillance.

Design, Setting, And Participants: This cross-sectional retrospective medical review study was conducted using case-level data from 3 level I US trauma centers (for 2008-2019) for patients presenting to the emergency department with an incident firearm injury of any severity.

Exposures: Classification of firearm injury intent.

Main Outcomes And Measures: Researchers reviewed electronic health records for all firearm injuries and compared intent adjudicated by team members (the gold standard) with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM) codes for firearm injury intent assigned by medical records coders (in discharge data) and by trauma registrars. Accuracy was assessed using intent-specific sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV).

Results: Of the 1227 cases of firearm injury incidents seen during the ICD-10-CM study period (October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019), the majority of patients (1090 [88.8%]) were male and 547 (44.6%) were White. The research team adjudicated 837 (68.2%) to be assaults. Of these assault incidents, 234 (28.0%) were ICD coded as unintentional injuries in hospital discharge data. These miscoded patient cases largely accounted for why discharge data had low sensitivity for assaults (66.3%) and low PPV for unintentional injuries (34.3%). Misclassification was substantial even for patient cases described explicitly as assaults in clinical notes (sensitivity of 74.3%), as well as in the ICD-9-CM study period (sensitivity of 77.0% for assaults and PPV of 38.0% for unintentional firearm injuries). By contrast, intent coded by trauma registrars differed minimally from researcher-adjudicated intent (eg, sensitivity for assault of 96.0% and PPV for unintentional firearm injury of 93.0%).

Conclusions And Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study underscore questions raised by prior work using aggregate count data regarding the accuracy of ICD-coded discharge data as a source of firearm injury intent. Based on our observations, researchers and policy makers should be aware that databases drawn from hospital discharge data (most notably, the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample) cannot be used to reliably count or characterize intent-specific firearm injuries.