Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: NEED HELP!!! Left mastoid tip upper neck tender mass consistent with lymphadenopathy

  1. #1

    Default NEED HELP!!! Left mastoid tip upper neck tender mass consistent with lymphadenopathy

    Promo: Code Books
    How would you code this diagnosis? Does consistent with lymphadenopathy make it lymphadenopathy or do you code for the mass and what is the diagnosis codes? Left mastoid tip upper neck tender mass consistent with lymphadenopathy

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chennai,Tamilnadu
    Posts
    95

    Default

    My thoughts
    if the reason for exam is mass we can code mass itself

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Stuart, Florida
    Posts
    331

    Lightbulb

    This article should be extremely helpful to you. Here you go!

    http://www.coderyte.com/Coding-corne...onditions.html

    How to code "consistent with" conditions
    Periodically, an official coding instruction “rocks the coding world.” Sometimes it’s just a small rumble, other times it’s more earth shattering. Most often it’s something between the two. But a recent clarification from the Central Office on ICD-9-CM that instructs coders that the expression “…consistent with…” is a phrase that indicates uncertainty and consequently cannot be coded from an ICD-9-CM standpoint is one of those instructions that probably rates rather high on the Richter Scale of coding quakes.

    The first official indication that the rule about not coding “probable,” “suspected,” “questionable,” “rule out,” or “working diagnosis” actually applies to other equivocal terms as well--besides just those five listed explicitly in the ICD-9-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting came in a letter from the Central Office on ICD-9-CM to CodeRyte, Inc. dated Oct. 8, 2003 in a response to a question posed by CodeRyte. (CodeRyte wanted to know whether “…consistent with…” and a few other frequently-used expressions were officially “equivocal” and so couldn’t be used for coding purposes.) Here is the key content from their Oct. 8, 2003 response:

    “As indicated in [CodeRyte’s] correspondence, other terms that indicate an uncertain diagnosis include (but are not limited to) ‘consistent with,’ ‘compatible with,’ indicative of,’ ‘suggesting,’ ‘suggestive of,’ ‘apparent,’ ‘consider,’ ‘low probability of,’ ‘high probability of,’ ‘evidence of,’ ‘likely,’ and ‘seemingly.’ The term ‘borderline’ does not necessarily indicate uncertainty. Proper determination would depend on how the physician has documented ‘borderline’ in the record.”

    As the Central Office on ICD-9-CM frequently does, this question and answer was ultimately reprinted for the masses about two years later in an issue of Coding Clinic for ICD-9-CM, published in September of 2005, specifically, the fourth quarter of 2005 issue (Volume 22, Number 3) on page 21:

    “Question: Our pathologists and radiologists frequently document interpretations in the outpatient setting with terms such as ‘consistent with,’ ‘compatible with,’ ‘indicative of,’ ‘suggestive of,’ and ‘comparable with.’ When queried, they state that they are not 100% certain that the patient has the condition. Should we assign a code for these conditions as if they were confirmed? “Answer: These terms fit the definition of a probable or suspected condition. According to the Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting (Section IV), in the outpatient setting diagnoses documented as ‘probable,’ ‘suspected,’ ‘questionable,’ ‘rule out,’ or ‘working diagnosis’ are not coded. Rather, code the condition(s) to the highest degree of certainty for that encounter/visit, such as symptoms, signs, abnormal test results, or other reason for the visit.”

    It took another year, but the ICD-9-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting finally caught up with this official clarification and the Guidelines were revised accordingly. The most recent Guidelines (effective Nov.15, 2006) had a small but significant language change--from:

    “Do not code diagnoses documented as ‘probable,’ ‘suspected,’ ‘questionable,’ ‘rule out,’ or ‘working diagnosis.’ Rather, code the condition(s) to the highest degree of certainty for that encounter/visit, such as symptoms, signs, abnormal test results, or other reason for the visit...”

    …to the slightly revised:

    “Do not code diagnoses documented as ‘probable,’ ‘suspected,’ ‘questionable,’ ‘rule out,’ or ‘working diagnosis’ or other similar terms indicating uncertainty. Rather, code the condition(s) to the highest degree of certainty for that encounter/visit, such as symptoms, signs, abnormal test results, or other reason for the visit.”

    The addition of this new “…or other similar terms indicating uncertainty…” phrase following the Coding Clinic announcement that “consistent with” indicates an uncertain diagnosis is meant to convey that there are other unlisted terms of “uncertainty” (e.g. “consistent with”) that should not be coded; the list of “terms that indicate uncertainty” includes more terms and expressions than just the five that are explicitly mentioned—and presumably now includes those “terms that indicate uncertainty” as listed in the Third Quarter 2005 Coding Clinic for ICD-9-CM issue.

    These latest guidelines with the new “or other similar terms indicating uncertainty” language can be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/ftpse...icdguide06.pdf
    That's only part of the article, quoted. Click the links to see the rest of the information.
    Vanessa Mier, CPC

  4. #4

    Default

    Hi,
    I agree witn Vanessa article,consistent with lymphadenopathy is fall under suspected or probable condition, so code only Mass...

    Regards,
    Nalini CPC

Similar Threads

  1. ulcerated bcc of the right upper neck
    By heyerflowers@gmail.com in forum Plastic Surgery
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-18-2015, 08:32 AM
  2. Excision of bony mass, mastoid skull.
    By martnel in forum ENT/Otolaryngology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-27-2014, 03:37 PM
  3. Exision of mass consistent with Neuroma
    By tvmedical@earthlink.net in forum Dermatology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-27-2011, 03:06 PM
  4. Neck mass
    By jwschroeterjr@gmail.com in forum Pathology & Clinical Laboratory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-17-2010, 03:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Enjoying Our Forums?

AAPC forums are a benefit of membership. Joining AAPC grants you unlimited access, allowing you to post questions and participate with our community of over 150,000 professionals.

Join Now Continue Reading Without Full Access

Already a Member?

Login

Close Message

In addition to full participation on AAPC forums, as a member you will be able to:

  • Access to the largest healthcare job database in the world.
  • Join over 150,000 members of the healthcare network in the world.
  • Be a part of an industry leading organization that drives the business side of healthcare.
  • Save anywhere from 10%-50% with exclusive member discounts on courses, books, study materials, and conferences.
  • Access to discounts at hundreds of restaurants, travel destinations, retail stores, and service providers. AAPC members also have opportunities to save on heath, life, and liability insurance.
  • Become a member of a local chapter and attend regular meetings.