Attribution of infections: Difference between revisions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(OK, I think I finally figured out how to explain what I am asking here.)
mNo edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
{{Discuss | Is the following correct, then:  
{{Discuss | Is the following correct, then:  
<blockquote>This means that an infection discovered shortly after admission should not generally be coded as an [[Acquired Diagnosis]], since it likely happened before the patient arrived on the current ward, and should instead be coded as an [[Admit Diagnosis]]. To be consistent, we have rules on how long after admission to a unit an infection needs to be discovered before we would call it an [[Acquired Diagnosis]] instead of an [[Admit Diagnosis]]. <blockquote>
<blockquote>This means that an infection discovered shortly after admission should not generally be coded as an [[Acquired Diagnosis]], since it likely happened before the patient arrived on the current ward, and should instead be coded as an [[Admit Diagnosis]]. To be consistent, we have rules on how long after admission to a unit an infection needs to be discovered before we would call it an [[Acquired Diagnosis]] instead of an [[Admit Diagnosis]]. <blockquote>
 
}}
== Diagnoses with specific attribution rules ==
== Diagnoses with specific attribution rules ==
We have specific attribution rules as documented in their pages for the following diagnoses:
We have specific attribution rules as documented in their pages for the following diagnoses:

Revision as of 15:44, 2021 January 26

There will always be a delay between an actual infection and the time at which the infection is confirmed by the lab, or manifests so it can be determined without lab clarification (for diagnoses where we allow that). Some of our reports "attribute" infections to units on which they happen if they are an Acquired Diagnosis.

  • I finally figured out how to ask this at task: I was worried that we might apply the delay at the data entry end and also at the reporting end (i.e. the delay might be included twice or not at all, so we need to phrase and then link this correctly so it's clear whether the delay is considered at collection or at reporting. Ttenbergen 21:37, 2020 August 27 (CDT)
  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories
Is the following correct, then: 

This means that an infection discovered shortly after admission should not generally be coded as an Acquired Diagnosis, since it likely happened before the patient arrived on the current ward, and should instead be coded as an Admit Diagnosis. To be consistent, we have rules on how long after admission to a unit an infection needs to be discovered before we would call it an Acquired Diagnosis instead of an Admit Diagnosis.

  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories

Diagnoses with specific attribution rules

We have specific attribution rules as documented in their pages for the following diagnoses:

Attribution for all other infections

  • Is the following correct, then:

A decided that an infection that is discovered within the first 48 hrs after admission should be coded as an Admit Diagnosis, and an infection discovered after that as an Acquired Diagnosis.

  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories

attribution doesn't apply to colonization

See Colonized with organism (not infected)#Colonizations are not attributed to any units

Cleanup

When this is all settled, the details need to be integrated into Template: ICD10 Guideline Infection, Lab and culture reports, Infections in ICD10

  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories

Related articles

Related articles: