mamacase1
Expert
Can someone tell me what ICD9 to use for history of indwelling catheter?
-
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ & read the forum rules. To view all forums, post or create a new thread, you must be an AAPC Member. If you are a member and have already registered for member area and forum access, you can log in by clicking here. If you've forgotten your username or password use our password reminder tool. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below..
Wiki ICD9 history
- Thread starter mamacase1
- Start date
MJ4ever
Guru
Not sure if I understand. Is there a complication with the catheter? Has it been left in place? Does the patient have a history of urinary problems?
2009 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 996.31
Mechanical complication due to urethral (indwelling) catheter
Would this one work?
2009 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 996.31
Mechanical complication due to urethral (indwelling) catheter
Would this one work?
mamacase1
Expert
thanks you that will work. My doctor does not give me alot of information to go by I have to research alot.
ohn0disaster
Guest
A complication code is NOT acceptable to use for documentation written as "history of indwelling catheter", especially if the doctor does not give you a lot of info to go by. The documentation must support the code. "History of indwelling cath" says to me that the patient had indwelling cath, no longer does, end of story. No code needed. Only you are the one that has the true documentation so, if there is more to it explaining that there was a mechanical complication with a patient's current indwelling cath, by all means code it. Just be aware that the use of the word "history" denotes something that is no longer occuring/there and you cannot have a mechanical complication with something that is no longer there.
If your doctor does not give you a lot of info to go by, rather than reaching for a DX code barely supported if supported at all, you may want to have a sit down with the doctor. Explain that you need the most specific documentation possible with any current DXs addressed to be able to do your job. An auditor is not going to research the patient's life history to try to decipher what the doctor is trying to get across. Please remember that you, as the coder, will be the person they come to if there is a problem with what is coded not being supported by the documentation. Protect yourself. DO NOT code something if it is iffy.
If your doctor does not give you a lot of info to go by, rather than reaching for a DX code barely supported if supported at all, you may want to have a sit down with the doctor. Explain that you need the most specific documentation possible with any current DXs addressed to be able to do your job. An auditor is not going to research the patient's life history to try to decipher what the doctor is trying to get across. Please remember that you, as the coder, will be the person they come to if there is a problem with what is coded not being supported by the documentation. Protect yourself. DO NOT code something if it is iffy.
MJ4ever
Guru
Thanks for the long drawn out explanation of what I meant Vanessa.
That is why I asked all those questions. We have providers that write 'history of' for every condition the patient currently is even being treated for. Got to be careful, because the providers thoughts are not always on the same level as ours.
So, yes, please, mamacase1, verify with your provider what s/he meant by it before you give the patient a complication code.
I apologize for my previously posted short reply that may have been too misinforming.
That is why I asked all those questions. We have providers that write 'history of' for every condition the patient currently is even being treated for. Got to be careful, because the providers thoughts are not always on the same level as ours.
So, yes, please, mamacase1, verify with your provider what s/he meant by it before you give the patient a complication code.
I apologize for my previously posted short reply that may have been too misinforming.