Page 2
October 2019 Ask the Experts Question: Anonymous Response: 58720: Salpingo-oophorectomy, complete or partial, unilateral or bilateral (separate procedure) C1765: Adhesion barrier Exploratory lap: According to the report, “Retractors were used to displace the abdominal wall to allow a thorough abdominal pelvic exploration with findings as noted above. The patient then had abdominal pelvic washings done in the following manner.” Ovarian mass (which was the ovary per the pathology) removal: fallopian tube and ovary: 58720 The rest of the report is a closure of all the pedicles, ligaments, etc, that they had to dissection to get the mass. This will not be coded separately. According to the report, “The self-retaining table-mounted Bookwalter retractor was then assembled and placed within the operative field to aid visualization. Adhesions involving the omentum with the anterior abdominal all were taken down with electrocautery and with the LigaSure instrument on a three-bar setting. The large right ovarian mass was displaced anteriorly and superiorly and the right ovarian artery and vein and the utero-ovarian ligament immediately adjacent to the ovary could be double clamped with curved Zeppelin clamps. This pedicle was then double coagulated and transected with the LigaSure instrument and then double ligated with 0 Vicryl ties. Hand-held retractors were used to displace the abdominal wall, at which time the ovarian mass with fallopian tube were delivered out of the operative incision as an intact specimen. The specimen was sent for frozen section pathology analysis.” Adhesion barrier: C1765 The report says, “It should be noted that two half-sheets of Seprafilm were placed over the right uterine cornua and right pelvic sidewall in an effort to minimize the risk of adhesions in this area during postoperative status. All pads, sponge, lap, instrument, needs, and towels were removed from the operative field and all counts were correct 2X. We then implemented the surgical site infection prevention protocol. All members of the operating room rescrubbed, regowned, and regloved. A separate sterile field instrument tray had been counted and was brought into the operative field. Two full sheets of Seprafilm were placed over the small bowel and omentum in an effort to reduce risk of adhesions to the overlying incision.” — Tasha Cameron, BS, RHIA, CCS, CDIP, CICA, is a Himagine educator and AHIMA-approved ICD-10-CM/PCS trainer/ambassador at Himagine Solutions Inc. Question: Anonymous Response: When considering selection of secondary diagnoses, refer to Section III of the FY 2020 ICD-10-CM Coding Guidelines entitled “Reporting Additional Diagnoses” which states the following: “For reporting purposes, the definition for ‘other diagnoses’ is interpreted as additional conditions that affect patient care in terms of requiring: • clinical evaluation; or • therapeutic treatment; or • diagnostic procedures; or • extended length of hospital stay; or • increased nursing care and/or monitoring. “The [Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set] item #11-b defines Other Diagnoses as ‘all conditions that coexist at the time of admission, that develop subsequently, or that affect the treatment received and/or the length of stay. Diagnoses that relate to an earlier episode which have no bearing on the current hospital stay are to be excluded.’” If a coding situation arises in which the provider documents a symptom followed by contrasting/comparative conditions for a secondary diagnosis (eg, “altered mental status, transient ischemic attack vs stroke”), then the provider should be queried. This is especially important when the condition in question may provide a complication or comorbidity or a major complication or comorbidity, and may group the Medicare severity diagnosis-related group to a higher payment tier for the inpatient admission. — Melody W. Mulaik, MSHS, CRA, FAHRA, RCC, CPC, CPC-H, is the president of Coding Strategies, Inc and Revenue Cycle, Inc. Question: Melissa McCombs, RHIT, CCS Response: Resources Sethi S. Community-acquired pneumonia. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/pulmonary-disorders/pneumonia/community-acquired-pneumonia. Updated March 2019. — Catrena L. Smith, CCS, CCS-P, CPCO, CPC, CIC, CPC-I, CRC, CHTS-PW, is the audit and education manager at KIWI-TEK. Q: Is it okay to code a diagnosis if the physician documents two diagnoses using the phrase “versus” between them? For example, the patient arrives with abdominal pain and the physician orders labs and other tests but they all come back normal. In the discharge note, the physician documents “abdominal pain, gastroenteritis versus irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).” When I first started as a CDI specialist I was told we could not use diagnosis when “versus” was stated, and that we had to query for clarification. A: Always refer back to the ICD-9-CM (ICD-10-CM/PCS) Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting if you are unsure of how to sequence or apply codes. Guidelines applicable to your situation are located in Section II, Selection of Principal Diagnosis. The first guideline states: “In those rare instances when two or more contrasting or comparative diagnoses are documented as “either/or” (or similar terminology), they are coded as if the diagnoses were confirmed and the diagnoses are sequenced according to the circumstances of the admission. If no further determination can be made as to which diagnosis should be principal, either diagnosis may be sequenced first.” However, let’s review another guideline from the same section which states: “When a symptom(s) is followed by contrasting/comparative diagnoses, the symptom code is sequenced first. All the contrasting/comparative diagnoses should be coded as secondary diagnoses.” In the situation described, the physician documented a symptom, abdominal pain, followed by two contrasting diagnoses, gastroenteritis and IBS in the discharge summary. The principal diagnosis is the abdominal pain and secondary diagnoses are the gastroenteritis and the IBS. If there is no symptom diagnosis documented–for example the physician documents NSTEMI versus GERD–the coder would assign a code for each, sequencing the principal according to the circumstances of the admission (as it tells us to in the Guidelines). Typically, however, the physician will have identified either the presence of the NSTEMI or the GERD, based on enzymes, and other testing. Consider flagging a record such as this for follow up review the next day. While the physician may not have ruled in or ruled out a given diagnosis at the time of an initial review, once lab results return and treatment is provided, you should have enough information to warrant a query to the physician for a more definitive diagnosis. Such a query might read: Dr. X, Mrs. Y was admitted with complaints of chest pain. The history of present illness states NSTEMI vs. GERD. Oxygen, nitroglycerine, and morphine were administered in the ED but provided with no relief. The patient received a GI cocktail and the pain decreased. Cardiac enzymes lab results were negative. EKG shows normal sinus rhythm and an EGD scheduled as outpatient. Can you please clarify the etiology of the chest pain? _____________Chest pain secondary to GERD, NSTEMI ruled out _____________Chest pain secondary to NSTEMI _____________Other _____________Unable to determine Editor’s Note: Laurie L. Prescott, RN, MSN, CCDS, CDIP, CRC, CDI Education Specialist at HCPro in Danvers, Massachusetts, answered this question. Contact her at . For information regarding CDI Boot Camps visit www.hcprobootcamps.com/courses/10040/overview. |