Controlling Dx Type for ICD10 codes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
* We will use a tool like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser AutoWikiBrowser]] or similar to get the changes integrated into pages. | * We will use a tool like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser AutoWikiBrowser]] or similar to get the changes integrated into pages. | ||
** Tina emailed the SMW mailing list to see what they suggest. Ttenbergen 20:03, 2018 August 6 (CDT) | ** Tina emailed the SMW mailing list to see what they suggest. Ttenbergen 20:03, 2018 August 6 (CDT) | ||
{{Discuss|Who=all|Yes we should do this. Allan [[User:Agarland|Agarland]] 15:17, 2018 August 23 (CDT)}} | |||
== Should we do this? == | == Should we do this? == | ||
Revision as of 15:17, 2018 August 23
Template:CCMDB Data Integrity Checks
Many of the items on the ICD10 Diagnosis List are not suitable as certain Dx Types.
Examples:
- Severe sepsis, VAP, reocurrent Pneumonia should never be a Comorbid Diagnosis
- Past history, removal of breast (mastectomy) should never be an Acquired Diagnosis / Complication or Admit Diagnosis
- many more
We would like a way to detect when such inconsistencies happen.
Proposed Solution 1
- Add three columns to the s_ICD10 table:
- como_not_allowed
- admit_not_allowed
- acquired_not_allowed
- Template:Discussion it might be possible to combine the admit and acquired columns; can someone think of a dx that would only be allowed in one of them, or prohibited in one of them?
- populate the columns
- default answers: NO in comorbid and YES in Admit, Acquired
- Template:Discussion there are 1814 ICD10 codes on our list. Who would do this?
- put cross checks into CCMDB.mdb to prevent bad entries
why do this change outside the wiki?
The change will require editing every single record in the ICD10 Diagnosis List, so doing it on the wiki would be time-prohibitive. If we do it externally the new fields would be imported into the wiki, which would then again be the master repository for this.
- We will use a tool like AutoWikiBrowser] or similar to get the changes integrated into pages.
- Tina emailed the SMW mailing list to see what they suggest. Ttenbergen 20:03, 2018 August 6 (CDT)
|
Yes we should do this. Allan Agarland 15:17, 2018 August 23 (CDT) |
Should we do this?
Template:Discussion Is this worth the effort? It would take someone not insignificant time.
Template:Discussion Is that a reasonable solution?
If we do this, should we do more?
- Discussed but rejected possibility to restrict impossible dx / sex field combinations.
- this would be the right time to also fix/implement the following:
- is_pathogen: see Category:Infection requiring pathogen
- pathogen requirement (see Category:Infection requiring pathogen, Category:Infection requiring pathogen, Category:Potential infection)
- min nr of combined codes field