Tracheostomy Site Infection: Difference between revisions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (minor)
m (clean-up and question for Trish/Pagasa)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DX tag | Infection |  | Tracheostomy Site Infection | see: [[UPL]] (Universal Pathogen List) | 9300 | No | 0 | CC and Med |  | 2015-May-11  | }}
{{DX tag | Infection |  | Tracheostomy Site Infection | see: [[UPL]] (Universal Pathogen List) | 9300 | No | 0 | CC and Med |  | 2015-May-11  | }}
We will start using this entry shortly...
{{Discussion}}
* does the pt then have to have a [[Tracheostomy]] entry as well, at least as an admit?
**If the tracheostomy was inserted during the current pt admission to hospital, then it can be put in the admit code.  If the tracheostomy is old and was inserted in a prior hospitalization then we don't usually put it in the admission codes.  If the pt has a trach site infection however, this code would be entered as an admit code or complication as the case may be.  Therefore, putting the procedure code of trach should not be essential in order to use the trach infection code.  --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 10:39, 2015 May 13 (CDT)


*If the following codes in '''Admit''' or '''Complication/Acquired''' DX slot:
*If the following codes in '''Admit''' or '''Complication/Acquired''' DX slot:
Line 13: Line 7:
*Keep both
*Keep both


==crosscheck==
{{discussion}}
* do we need to cross-check with [[Trach Task]]
* Is this important? Does it require a cross-check? If it is not important, should this be a rule at all? Ttenbergen 17:12, 2015 May 14 (CDT)
**YES.  If 774 (trach) or 93 (trach site infection) in admit or acquired
 
*cross check with TISS28: T23, T47
== {{CCMDB Data Integrity Checks}} ==
* [[Trach_Task#CCDMB_Data_Integrity_Checks]]
* Check if TISS28 item 23 & item 47 if applicable is marked.
* Discussed whether a trach (774**) dx should be required for this dx. Laura K pointed out that at least in CC an uncomplicated previously existing tracheostomy would not necessarily be coded as a dx, so not adding a cross check for this.


== Legacy ==
== Legacy ==
Line 23: Line 20:
New code added to s_alldiagnoses for CCMDB.mdb version 2015-May-4-6.  
New code added to s_alldiagnoses for CCMDB.mdb version 2015-May-4-6.  


Conversion of old dxs in CFE is still outstanding. There is an SQL update query Pagasa is to run in CFE.
{{discussion}}
 
* Conversion of old dxs in CFE is still outstanding. There is an SQL update query Pagasa is to run in CFE.
** Pagasa, has this been done as per the email I sent you? Ttenbergen 17:12, 2015 May 14 (CDT)


[[Category: Tracheostomy]]
[[Category: Tracheostomy]]

Revision as of 17:12, 2015 May 14

Legacy Content

This page is about the pre-ICD10 diagnosis coding schema. See the ICD10 Diagnosis List, or the following for similar diagnoses in ICD10:Tracheostomy complication, infection of site

Click Expand to show legacy content.


edit dx infobox
Category/Organ
System:
Category: Infection (old)

Type:

Medical Problem

Main Diagnosis: Tracheostomy Site Infection
Sub Diagnosis: see: UPL (Universal Pathogen List)
Diagnosis Code: 9300
Comorbid Diagnosis: No
Charlson Comorbid coding (pre ICD10): 0
Program: CC and Med
Status:
Start Date: 2015-May-11
  • If the following codes in Admit or Complication/Acquired DX slot:

a. 77400 & 93xx (xx mean subcode, 00 mean no subcode)

  • drop 77400

b. 774xx & 93xx

  • Keep both

Template:Discussion

  • Is this important? Does it require a cross-check? If it is not important, should this be a rule at all? Ttenbergen 17:12, 2015 May 14 (CDT)

Template:CCMDB Data Integrity Checks

  • Trach_Task#CCDMB_Data_Integrity_Checks
  • Check if TISS28 item 23 & item 47 if applicable is marked.
  • Discussed whether a trach (774**) dx should be required for this dx. Laura K pointed out that at least in CC an uncomplicated previously existing tracheostomy would not necessarily be coded as a dx, so not adding a cross check for this.

Legacy

This was coded as 77408 - Tracheostomy site infection until 2015-May-11.

New code added to s_alldiagnoses for CCMDB.mdb version 2015-May-4-6.

Template:Discussion

  • Conversion of old dxs in CFE is still outstanding. There is an SQL update query Pagasa is to run in CFE.
    • Pagasa, has this been done as per the email I sent you? Ttenbergen 17:12, 2015 May 14 (CDT)