COVID-19 (SARS-COV-2): Difference between revisions
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
TOstryzniuk (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
* We will not identify someone with the code unless they have confirmed COVID-19. - Allan Garland 2020-Mar-23 | * We will not identify someone with the code unless they have confirmed COVID-19. - Allan Garland 2020-Mar-23 | ||
** I wonder if this is more a question about how far into the future we follow labs (ie. [[Lab_and_culture_reports#How_long_to_wait_for_a_result]] or [[Attribution of infections]]. Also, we may need to integrate those better, the only reason I found them was because I knew there were pages that deal with this, so I looked for them but they were not easy to find. Ttenbergen 15:38, 2020 March 25 (CDT) | ** I wonder if this is more a question about how far into the future we follow labs (ie. [[Lab_and_culture_reports#How_long_to_wait_for_a_result]] or [[Attribution of infections]]. Also, we may need to integrate those better, the only reason I found them was because I knew there were pages that deal with this, so I looked for them but they were not easy to find. Ttenbergen 15:38, 2020 March 25 (CDT) | ||
***I don't believe that | ***I don't believe that Cadham lab or Provincial Microbiolgy lab, those results are shown on EPR. Are they? If not if a patient goes home before test result are available, we will not pull charts to find out after. However, since we are much more retrospective with our collection, then this might not be an issue?[[User:TOstryzniuk|Trish Ostryzniuk]] 17:37, 2020 March 26 (CDT) | ||
**** You raise a good point Trish regarding results not available on EPR so even with retrospective collection at STB this is an issue unless results become available during a patients stay and the team documents in the IPN. To account for presumptive COVID cases would an ICD 10 code for these scenarios be of value to the data collection program ie. Presumed Covid? If COVID can only be coded with a confirmed positive result, and there is no code for presumptive cases, then how are the presumptive cases to be coded using current coding schemata so collectors code consistently? [[User:Ppiche|Pamela Piche]] 08:39, 2020 March 27 (CDT) | **** You raise a good point Trish regarding results not available on EPR so even with retrospective collection at STB this is an issue unless results become available during a patients stay and the team documents in the IPN. To account for presumptive COVID cases would an ICD 10 code for these scenarios be of value to the data collection program ie. Presumed Covid? If COVID can only be coded with a confirmed positive result, and there is no code for presumptive cases, then how are the presumptive cases to be coded using current coding schemata so collectors code consistently? [[User:Ppiche|Pamela Piche]] 08:39, 2020 March 27 (CDT) | ||
*****'''The question is this''': for presumptive COVID19, how would think this is best coded? | *****'''The question is this''': for presumptive COVID19, how would think this is best coded? | ||
****** | ******1. [[Pneumonia, NOS]] – with infectious organism NOS or | ||
****** | ******2. [[Pneumonia, viral – combined with VIRAL NOS | ||
*Allan's Reply --- ICD10 approach to diagnosis is to code things that are actually diagnosed. Of course not all things diagnosed are actually TRUE, but the idea is to do the best we can. When somebody goes home before a specific infection is diagnosed, we do not want to code things as presumptive. Instead, do just the same as you'd do for non-COVID issues. Of the | *'''Allan's Reply''' --- ICD10 approach to diagnosis is to code things that are actually diagnosed. Of course not all things diagnosed are actually TRUE, but the idea is to do the best we can. When somebody goes home before a specific infection is diagnosed, we do not want to code things as presumptive. Instead, do just the same as you'd do for non-COVID issues. Of the two options above, I'd '''probably choose the 1st of them''' [[Pneumonia, NOS]] – with infectious organism NOS }} | ||
}} | |||
== Candidate [[Combined ICD10 codes]] == | == Candidate [[Combined ICD10 codes]] == |
Revision as of 12:56, 2020 March 31
ICD10 Diagnosis | |
Dx: | COVID-19 (SARS-COV-2) |
ICD10 code: | U07.1 |
Pre-ICD10 counterpart: | none assigned |
Charlson/ALERT Scale: | none |
APACHE Como Component: | none |
APACHE Acute Component: | none |
Start Date: | |
Stop Date: | |
External ICD10 Documentation |
This diagnosis is a part of ICD10 collection.
We will not identify someone with the code unless they have confirmed COVID-19. - Allan Garland 2020-Mar-23
Alternate ICD10s to consider coding instead or in addition
Only use this for confirmed cases of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) - not other Coronavirus
Can this code be called COVID-19 to eliminate confusion? --Jvelasco 08:44, 2020 March 20 (CDT)
This code is the code for a pathogen, not an infection. To use it you have to code an infection (e.g. Lower_respiratory_tract_infection,_acute_infectious ) as a combined code with this virus pathogen code, you can’t code it alone. If we want to keep it like that I can change the name to something like “SARS-CoV-2 (causes COVID19)”, but would want to keep the virus name in there. If we want to code it in without combined code because it would only be used in that circumstance (eg Botulism) then we can change it to an Infection with implied pathogen. This would only allow coding it on its own, and would no longer qualify it as a pathogen. Possible drawback is that we would not know if someone e.g. had a sepsis related to it, or just breathing issues, since it would now not necessarily be coded as a disease code. Third alternative is to make it into a “Double duty” code like Rabies. For that one specifically we then have Infectious contact/exposure, rabies, without disease (yet). This would allow coding this as a single code to express COVID, but also as a pathogen code to show that it was e.g. the cause of a sepsis. |
{{DiscussTask|
- I am starting to see patients who have been tested, and discharged prior to result being obtained. We currently do not have a way of finding out the test results. Is this something that we should be collecting, and if so, how would we be able to find these results?Mlagadi 13:29, 2020 March 23 (CDT
- We will not identify someone with the code unless they have confirmed COVID-19. - Allan Garland 2020-Mar-23
- I wonder if this is more a question about how far into the future we follow labs (ie. Lab_and_culture_reports#How_long_to_wait_for_a_result or Attribution of infections. Also, we may need to integrate those better, the only reason I found them was because I knew there were pages that deal with this, so I looked for them but they were not easy to find. Ttenbergen 15:38, 2020 March 25 (CDT)
- I don't believe that Cadham lab or Provincial Microbiolgy lab, those results are shown on EPR. Are they? If not if a patient goes home before test result are available, we will not pull charts to find out after. However, since we are much more retrospective with our collection, then this might not be an issue?Trish Ostryzniuk 17:37, 2020 March 26 (CDT)
- You raise a good point Trish regarding results not available on EPR so even with retrospective collection at STB this is an issue unless results become available during a patients stay and the team documents in the IPN. To account for presumptive COVID cases would an ICD 10 code for these scenarios be of value to the data collection program ie. Presumed Covid? If COVID can only be coded with a confirmed positive result, and there is no code for presumptive cases, then how are the presumptive cases to be coded using current coding schemata so collectors code consistently? Pamela Piche 08:39, 2020 March 27 (CDT)
- The question is this: for presumptive COVID19, how would think this is best coded?
- 1. Pneumonia, NOS – with infectious organism NOS or
- 2. [[Pneumonia, viral – combined with VIRAL NOS
- The question is this: for presumptive COVID19, how would think this is best coded?
- You raise a good point Trish regarding results not available on EPR so even with retrospective collection at STB this is an issue unless results become available during a patients stay and the team documents in the IPN. To account for presumptive COVID cases would an ICD 10 code for these scenarios be of value to the data collection program ie. Presumed Covid? If COVID can only be coded with a confirmed positive result, and there is no code for presumptive cases, then how are the presumptive cases to be coded using current coding schemata so collectors code consistently? Pamela Piche 08:39, 2020 March 27 (CDT)
- I don't believe that Cadham lab or Provincial Microbiolgy lab, those results are shown on EPR. Are they? If not if a patient goes home before test result are available, we will not pull charts to find out after. However, since we are much more retrospective with our collection, then this might not be an issue?Trish Ostryzniuk 17:37, 2020 March 26 (CDT)
- I wonder if this is more a question about how far into the future we follow labs (ie. Lab_and_culture_reports#How_long_to_wait_for_a_result or Attribution of infections. Also, we may need to integrate those better, the only reason I found them was because I knew there were pages that deal with this, so I looked for them but they were not easy to find. Ttenbergen 15:38, 2020 March 25 (CDT)
- Allan's Reply --- ICD10 approach to diagnosis is to code things that are actually diagnosed. Of course not all things diagnosed are actually TRUE, but the idea is to do the best we can. When somebody goes home before a specific infection is diagnosed, we do not want to code things as presumptive. Instead, do just the same as you'd do for non-COVID issues. Of the two options above, I'd probably choose the 1st of them Pneumonia, NOS – with infectious organism NOS }}
Candidate Combined ICD10 codes
Related CCI Codes
Data Integrity Checks (automatic list)
App | Status | |
---|---|---|
Query check ICD10 Inf Potential Infection must have pathogen or alt | CCMDB.accdb | declined |
Check Inf Antibiotic resistance must have pathogen or Infection with implied pathogen | CCMDB.accdb | implemented |
Check Inf Infection with implied pathogen must not have a pathogen combined code | CCMDB.accdb | implemented |
Query check ICD10 Inf Infection req Pathogen must have one | CCMDB.accdb | implemented |
Query Check Inf Pathogens must have Infection requiring pathogen or Potential Infection | CCMDB.accdb | implemented |
Related Articles
Show all ICD10 Subcategories