Query check ICD10 trach dxs consistent

Data Integrity Checks
Summary:	Tracheostomy related CCI and ICD10 codes must be consistent with each other.
Related:	Tracheostomy, has one, Tracheostomy care, Tracheostomy complication, hemorrhage from site, Tracheostomy complication, malfunction, Tracheostomy complication, NOS, Tracheostomy complication, tracheo-esophageal fistula, Tracheostomy creation
Firmness:	hard check
Timing:
App:	CCMDB.mdb
Coding:	Query check_ICD10_trach_dxs_consistent
Uses L Problem table:	not relevant for this app
Status:	implemented
Implementation Date:	2019-01-22
Backlogged:	true

Cargo

SMW

"CCMDB.mdb" is not in the list (SAP, not entered, Centralized data front end.accdb, DSM Labs Consistency check.accdb, CCMDB.accdb, TISS28.accdb) of allowed values for the "DICApp" property.

Categories:

form:

if any trach-implying dxs are present then pt must have at least one code that indicates that they have a trach :
- trach-implying dxs
  - Tracheostomy complication, hemorrhage from site (J95.00)
  - Tracheostomy complication, malfunction (J95.02)
  - Tracheostomy complication, NOS (J95.08)
  - Tracheostomy complication, tracheo-esophageal fistula (J95.03)
- code that indicates that they have a trach
  - CCI - Tracheostomy creation
  - ICD10 - Tracheostomy, has one (Z93.0)

False positives?

	This code could be used as an admit code if the patient is a transfer from another ICU. For example, the patient was in ICMS and there had a trach created, later, the patient was transferred to ICCS. The data collector there will have "tracheostomy, has one" in her admit codes. She would not put it in her comorbids. Our integrity checks do not allow this it seems. How do you want to resolve this? --LKolesar 11:36, 2019 April 12 I think I fixed this, pls confirm if it's still a problem. Ttenbergen 10:29, 2019 April 23 (CDT)

Log

2019-04-08 - removed Tracheostomy care from this query; changed how it is structured altogether to test new rule
2019-03-20 - previously this also required one of the above if "has one" was present, but that makes no sense, because one could be present without additional care requirements, so have taken that part out. Ttenbergen 12:45, 2019 March 20 (CDT)