General Diagnosis Coding Guidelines: Difference between revisions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Discuss | who=Trish | question= I have linked this from [[Critical Care and Medicine Database Core Curriculum]], but it likely needs updating. Unless we don't want it at all. }}
There are cases where a diagnosis in the chart may not meet all the wiki criteria outlined for a specific code. Please consider the following points when trying to decide on the best way to code an unclear or difficult diagnosis.
 
There are cases where a diagnosis may not meet all criteria we set out for it in the code book. Instead of basing the decisions solely on criteria in the code book, please also consider the following points. Please consider all these points before requesting clarification from Trish.
 
''For specific instructions, see [[Admit Diagnosis]], [[Comorbid Diagnosis]] and [[Acquired Diagnosis / Complication]].''


== Consider what we use the data for ==
== Consider what we use the data for ==
When you code a diagnosis, consider what the database '''uses''' it for. Would someone be able to generate some meaning from your entry later? Consider how our coded diagnoses are used and [[General Diagnosis Coding Guidelines#Use your best judgment|Use your best judgment]].
When you code a diagnosis, consider what the database '''uses''' it for. Would someone be able to generate some meaning from your entry later? Consider how our coded diagnoses are used and use your best judgement. Please see:
* [[CCMDB]]
* [[Publications, abstracts, presentations using the Critical Care and Medicine Database]]
* [[Reporting]]
* https://wiki.umintmed.ca/index.php?title=Critical_Care_and_Medicine_Database
* [[:Category: Data Use]]


== If the doctor says so, it probably is ==
== If the doctor says so, it probably is ==
*If a doctor diagnoses a condition when our guide criteria are not fully met, code it.  
*If a doctor diagnoses a condition when our criteria are not fully met, code it.  
*If the chart supports that the diagnosis is wrong fundamentally (not a similar dx of the same flavour), [[General Diagnosis Coding Guidelines#Use your best judgment | use your best judgement]] and [[General Diagnosis Coding Guidelines#Talk to the doctor | talk to the doctor]].
*If the chart supports that the diagnosis is wrong fundamentally (not a similar dx of the same flavour), [[General Diagnosis Coding Guidelines#Use your best judgment | use your best judgement]] and [[General Diagnosis Coding Guidelines#Talk to the doctor | talk to the doctor]].
*An exception to this "rule" is for diagnoses which have specific, standard criteria that are listed on the relevant wiki page. Examples include [[VAP]] and [[CLI]].   
*An exception to this "rule" is for diagnoses which have specific, standard criteria that are listed on the relevant wiki pages. Examples include [[VAP]] and [[CLI]].   
**Sometimes with these the physicians and others might be using different diagnoses from the ones we decided to use in the database.
**Sometimes physicians and others might be using different criteria for diagnosing VAPs and CLIs, than the ones we have decided to use in our database. Collectors must follow our criteria to verify the presence of a VAP or CLI.


== Is the diagnosis highly likely ==
== Is the diagnosis highly likely ==
Line 18: Line 19:


== When in doubt, code it ==
== When in doubt, code it ==
Easier to exclude false positives than to catch false negatives.  
It is easier to exclude false positives than to catch false negatives.  


If we code an ambiguous diagnosis, and it is false, then a chart review will find and eliminate that error.  
If we code an ambiguous diagnosis, and it is false, then a chart review will find and eliminate that error.  
Line 25: Line 26:


== Use your best judgment ==
== Use your best judgment ==
All data collectors are ICU nurses. This decision was made because you guys know enough to know what the quack of a duck sounds like. So, try to make reasonable decisions. If you could make a good case to defend coding an ambiguous diagnosis, code it, and vice versa.
All data collectors are ICU nurses with a strong medical knowledge base. This knowledge is necessary to interpret the chart and make reasonable coding decisions, especially when the diagnoses are ambiguous or unclear. If a good case can be made to defend coding an ambiguous diagnosis, then code it and vice versa.
If all we wanted was someone who can tell if a criteria we state is met, we could have hired less qualified staff.  


== Talk to the doctor ==
== Talk to the doctor ==
If you are unsure about a diagnosis, talk to the ward staff or the doctor. There have been negative reactions to this from some doctors in the past. Dr. Roberts wants to assure you that you have full backing from him if this happens. If you respectfully approach a doctor with a concern about collecting data on a chart, and the doctor is not professional about providing an answer, please email Dr. Roberts and Trish about this and Dr. Roberts will intervene.
If you are unsure about a diagnosis, talk to the ward staff or the doctor. If there are any issues when you approach the staff with questions, please notify Trish.
An email will also be sent out to doctors to remind them that cooperation with data collectors is mandatory.  


== Discussion ==
Given that our data is largely collected retrospectively, it is less likely that there will be an opportunity talk to the staff, but at times this may be a reasonable approach to clarifying any patient information.
* These are meant to make your life easier. If you have concerns with them, as always, please post them here. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:35, 29 May 2009 (CDT)


{{DT | flag again for collectors }}
== Related articles ==
{{Related Articles}}


[[Category: Data Collection Guide]]
[[Category: Data Collection Guide]]

Latest revision as of 10:41, 2022 December 21

There are cases where a diagnosis in the chart may not meet all the wiki criteria outlined for a specific code. Please consider the following points when trying to decide on the best way to code an unclear or difficult diagnosis.

Consider what we use the data for

When you code a diagnosis, consider what the database uses it for. Would someone be able to generate some meaning from your entry later? Consider how our coded diagnoses are used and use your best judgement. Please see:

If the doctor says so, it probably is

  • If a doctor diagnoses a condition when our criteria are not fully met, code it.
  • If the chart supports that the diagnosis is wrong fundamentally (not a similar dx of the same flavour), use your best judgement and talk to the doctor.
  • An exception to this "rule" is for diagnoses which have specific, standard criteria that are listed on the relevant wiki pages. Examples include VAP and CLI.
    • Sometimes physicians and others might be using different criteria for diagnosing VAPs and CLIs, than the ones we have decided to use in our database. Collectors must follow our criteria to verify the presence of a VAP or CLI.

Is the diagnosis highly likely

If the chart leaves some uncertainty about the true diagnosis, but it is very likely that a diagnosis is present, code it.

When in doubt, code it

It is easier to exclude false positives than to catch false negatives.

If we code an ambiguous diagnosis, and it is false, then a chart review will find and eliminate that error.

If we don't code an ambiguous diagnosis, we will never find out about it.

Use your best judgment

All data collectors are ICU nurses with a strong medical knowledge base. This knowledge is necessary to interpret the chart and make reasonable coding decisions, especially when the diagnoses are ambiguous or unclear. If a good case can be made to defend coding an ambiguous diagnosis, then code it and vice versa.

Talk to the doctor

If you are unsure about a diagnosis, talk to the ward staff or the doctor. If there are any issues when you approach the staff with questions, please notify Trish.

Given that our data is largely collected retrospectively, it is less likely that there will be an opportunity talk to the staff, but at times this may be a reasonable approach to clarifying any patient information.

Related articles

Related articles: