ESBL or MRO: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:54, 26 February 2014

24 - ESBL or MRO (extended spectrum beta-lactamase), MRO (meropenem-resistant organism other than Stenotrophomonas)

Question: From: Trish Ostryzniuk Subject: RE: code specific pathogen for an infection or if ESBL then code that?

Example: UTI due to E.Coli which is also ESBL on C&S. No past medical history of ESBL.

What would be the priority to code this type of case:

a. UTI due to E.Coli or

b. UTI due to ESBL

Currently we cannot code UTI due to E.Coli PLUS UTI due to ESBL .

Answer: From: anand kumar

Uti with E coli

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[24 - ESBL or MRO]] (extended spectrum beta-lactamase), MRO (meropenem-resistant organism other than Stenotrophomonas)
+'''Question:'''
+From: Trish Ostryzniuk
+Subject: RE: code specific pathogen for an infection or if ESBL then code that?
-'''Question sent to Dr. Kumar''': ''Does anyone know the answer to whether it is more important to code the specific bug causing the infection (which also happens to be ESBL) or is it more important to code that the bug that is causing the infection is ESBL? We can’t code both (example septic shock due to Ecoli pathogen and septic shock due to ESBL, can only code one of these that may causing septic shock not both). It seems to be an area of inconsistent collection. Example: patient is has +ve blood or other culture that is  E.COLI but C&S report says ESBL.  Is it preferable to code specific infection say shock  is due to E.COLI pathogen or septic shock is due to a bug that is ESBL?'' [[User: GHall | Gail Hall]]--[[User:TOstryzniuk|Trish Ostryzniuk]] 18:35, 2014 February 19 (CST)
+Example:
+UTI due to E.Coli which is also ESBL on C&S.   No past medical history of
+ESBL.
+What would be the priority to code this type of case:
+a. UTI due to E.Coli or
+b. UTI due to ESBL
+Currently we cannot code UTI due to E.Coli PLUS UTI due to ESBL .
-[[Category: UPL]]
+'''Answer:'''
-[[Category: Gram -ve bacteria]]
+From: anand kumar
+Uti with E coli