Nursing
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

ICD-10 Coding Uncovers Higher Rate of Fatal Falls Among Seniors

Cheryl Clark, for HealthLeaders Media, May 21, 2012

"This calls attention to the fact that falls are an extremely important cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly, and now we're starting to see what the real numbers are. They are far and away the leading cause of death in the elderly."

The greatest increase, her research discovered, was a 698% increase in mortality coding under the category "other falls on the same level," falls that aren't as likely to result in injury as a fall down a flight of stairs, for example. 

In 1999, the first year of ICD-10, only 1.6 people age 65 or older per 100,000 population were said to have died from a fall on the same level. But by 2007, that had jumped to 13 per 100,000.

These same-level falls, perhaps resulting after someone loses one's balance, occur more often in the elderly and don't result in injuries that are immediately life threatening.

Instead, they prompt a trip to the doctor or hospital, a diagnosis of a broken or fractured hip, and often complications from surgery or pneumonia weeks or months later.  Before the switch to ICD-10 in 1999, Baker says, physicians signing death certificates were more likely to code such deaths as simply resulting from pneumonia or other complications, and ignore the fall that precipitated it weeks before.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

1 comments on "ICD-10 Coding Uncovers Higher Rate of Fatal Falls Among Seniors"


DonS (5/22/2012 at 1:54 PM)
As a non-supporter of ICD-10, I was very eager to learn of a benefit of the coding. This FALLS short (pun intended!) People fall and have complications of pnuemonia or surgery so the cause of death is FALL!? Why not make cause of death WALKING? The walking led to the fall which led to the pnuemonia. I realize that I dont have the full report, but anyone who uses this report to tout the benefits of ICD-10 is really grasping at straws!