This is just an example of how ridiculous ICD 10. These are the codes I came up with when I tried to type in pedestrian hit by a car, which is a common occurrence that should be easy to look up:
So it's easier to code for somebody injured on a kayak than being hit by a car?
The amount of specificity with a lot of these new diagnoses is really something. Even with the ICD-9 I think a lot of us frequently went with the "not otherwise specified" option with a diagnosis simply because we didn't know. I get the impression that the heightened specificity is something of a statistician's dream, but I wonder how useful it will really be. I think beyond the core diagnosis, a lot of the specifics will be chosen at random...ReplyDelete
Apparently there's a code for burn due to waterskis on fire.ReplyDelete
… and yet we at our hospital have been told that a good part of the rest of the world has been using ICD-10 for years. How do they make it work?ReplyDelete
hit by something that fell onto a kayak??? WTH. So useful. ICD10 is just a way for the insurance companies to find new ways to not pay for people's medical bills.ReplyDelete
There is a code for an injury following an accident with a spacecraft. I kid you not.ReplyDelete
(I know some patients look and/or sound like they have landed somewhere directly from their mother-ship, but come on...)