update with generated full content

[grahamegrieve]

No description provided.

[rhausam]

Unfortunately, this CodeSystem resource instance doesn't contain a complete representation of the ICD-9-CM codes. In particular, it seems to be missing at least some or all of the most important billable codes that contain the 5th digit. Some examples of those missing codes include:
003.20 | Localized salmonella infection, unspecified
003.21 | Salmonella meningitis
003.22 | Salmonella pneumonia
003.23 | Salmonella arthritis
003.24 | Salmonella osteomyelitis
003.29 | Other localized salmonella infections

Without the inclusion of all of the billable 5-digit codes, the code system representation isn't actually going to be useful.

I also noted that some of the descriptions in the resource do not seem to match the published descriptions. An example is 003.1, with a display of "Salmonella septicaemia" (apparently the British/Australian spelling?) - which doesn't match the published short and long descriptions of "Salmonella septicemia" (which is the US spelling, as would be expected for the US variant of ICD-9).

There doesn't seem to be a single source file available which contains all of the billable codes (including those with 5 digits) as well as the higher level non-billable parent codes (e.g., "003.2 | Localized salmonella infections"), which are needed to provide the complete hierarchy. So I think it is necessary to combine the data from at least two different source files (in two different formats) to be able to generate a complete and fully useable CodeSystem resource representation for ICD-9-CM.

[grahamegrieve]

Did these errors come from my processing? or from the source?

[rhausam]

It appears that the "errors" are from the source, not the processing - but I think that depends on being sure about exactly what you are trying to represent. The source file that is listed (https://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Publications/ICD-9/ucod.txt) appears to be the source for ICD-9 (the WHO international version), and is not the source for ICD-9-CM (the US ICD-9 variant). If we are intending to represent ICD-9-CM (which I'm pretty sure is the case) then this is not going to be sufficient (or even completely correct in some cases, such as some of the display strings).