Plea for a standardised detailed clinical nomenclature

The choice of a nomenclature for the encoding of the medical information to be stored in an electronic patient record (EPR) is a critical issue. As we are currently developing a neurosurgical EPR, we evaluated three nomenclatures or classifications, Read, ICD-10 and Quick Medical Reference (QMR) for the capture of the detailed concepts referenced in the EPR. We scored the correspondence with 2 for a good match, 1 for a fair match and 0 for no match. The Read nomenclature ranked first with an overall score of 1.21 (max. 2.0), the ICD-10 obtained 0.88 and the QMR 0.74. Some groups of items such as the neurosurgical history and examination were fairly well represented in the three systems. On the opposite, others such as the various neurosurgical clinical and radiological scoring and grading systems and the outcome descriptors were not correctly referenced in any coding system. Although the Read coding system has been advocated to represent the clinical activity in neurosurgery, it still needs an enrichment before being able to completely cover the concepts present in a neurosurgical record. Moreover the development of an international, standardised, detailed nomenclature and classification collecting the advantages of the various coding systems currently in use should be encouraged to be able to exchange and compare medical data.