U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

More Harm Than Good? Diagnostic Codes for Child and Adult Abuse

NCJ Number
203570
Journal
Violence and Victims Volume: 18 Issue: 5 Dated: October 2003 Pages: 491-502
Author(s)
Sue Rovi; Mark S. Johnson
Editor(s)
Roland D. Maiuro Ph.D.
Date Published
October 2003
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This study sought to better understand the reasons for the lack of use of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes for child and adult abuse.
Abstract
Diagnostic codes located in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) are used to justify treatment and reimbursement for medical costs and provide statistical data on the prevalence and incidence of diseases and/or health problems. Since 1979, diagnostic codes for child and adult maltreatment syndrome have been available. The purpose of this study was to better understand the reasons for the lack of use of these diagnostic codes for child and adult abuse. This was a qualitative study using focus groups of “experts” with experience in caring and advocating for victims of abuse and/or issues related to coding abuse. Three separate groups of experts were convened and included: one each for child, adult (primarily woman), and elder abuse. For child and elder abuse the key experts were nationally recognized physicians and for adult abuse the experts were the State coalition for battered women. Data consisted of the text from the transcriptions of the three focus groups. Overall, the discussions on the use of diagnostic codes for abuse suggest that the negative implications of coding outweigh the benefits. The discussions showed that the diagnostic coding of child abuse compared with adult abuse may have more merit, primarily because the abuse must be reported anyway. Potential limitations were suggested in the findings because only three focused discussions were conducted in one State. The study opens up a dialogue on the controversial use of diagnostic codes for child and adult abuse in particular. Appendix and references