Query check ICD10 trach dxs consistent: Difference between revisions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replacement - "CCMDB.mdb" to "CCMDB.accdb")
mNo edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
| DIC_app = CCMDB.accdb
| DIC_app = CCMDB.accdb
| DIC_coding = Query ''check_ICD10_trach_dxs_consistent''
| DIC_coding = Query ''check_ICD10_trach_dxs_consistent''
| DIC_status = implemented
| DIC_status = needs review
| DIC_implementation_date = 2019-01-22
| DIC_implementation_date = 2019-01-22
}}
}}
{{TT|
This can now include:
* if there is a [[Tracheostomy, has one]] ICD10, there needs to be a {{TISS w Nr | Trach Tube Present (TISS Item)}} for at least the first day
* if there is an [[Acquired Procedure]] of [[Tracheostomy creation]], there has to be a {{TISS w Nr | Trach Tube Present (TISS Item)}} for at least the [[Px Date]]
}}


* if any trach-implying dxs are present then pt must have at least one code that indicates that they have a trach :
* if any trach-implying dxs are present then pt must have at least one code that indicates that they have a trach :
Line 27: Line 33:
[[Category:ICD10 Dx check]]
[[Category:ICD10 Dx check]]
[[Category:CCI Px check‎]]
[[Category:CCI Px check‎]]
[[Category:TISS28 checks]]

Revision as of 18:58, 2020 December 2

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.accdb
Coding: Query check_ICD10_trach_dxs_consistent
Uses L Problem table: not relevant for this app
Status: needs review
Implementation Date: 2019-01-22
Backlogged: true
  • Cargo


  • SMW


  • Categories: 
  • form:

This can now include:

  • added: no added date
  • action: no action date
  • Cargo


  • Categories


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)