• linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    Minor nuisances, but no major issues with ICD-10

    Harry Drummond MDDrummond, MDHarry Drummond, MD
    Family medicine
    Simi Valley, California

    Lost in translation

    Nov.11, 2015

    There have been a few problems with finding appropriate codes using our IMO; but our EHR ICD-10 search engine only gives limited choices. For example, a search for "DM type 2" only gives choice of "DM type with complications" or "DM type 2 without complications." You cannot get a diagnosis of "DM type2" which is all I need for my problem list.

    Nov. 12, 2015

    More of the same problems with ICD-10 searches. When searching for "hypertension," the IMO insists that I choose between eight descriptors beginning with "essential hypertension." All I need for my problem list and all the patient wants to read is "hypertension," but the word "hypertension" is not a choice.

    Nov.13, 2015

    IT informed us today that the ICD-10 descriptors in our EHR were hard coded to be in SNOMED language, which is not user friendly and hard for patients to understand. The only way we can get understandable language in our progress note assessments is to use the IMO. This is very discouraging.


    NEXT: From discouraging to encouraging


    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • Anonymous
      How much does this transition cost? How much have we spent on training, new programs, and new books? How much time have we spent looking up codes for this new system, dragging out appointments and delaying patient care? Add up all the time you're spent and calculate the pice of your time that has been lost. Now add up the staff time, and the training (and the staff/physician time) for that. Then add the book and programs. What does it add up to? Is this improving patient care? How much time is spent on re-submitting codes for labs that were rejected since there weren't enough suffixes? What labs did the patient not get since the codes didn't exactly match what the insurance dictated for them? Isn't medical care already too expensive? Isn't this driving up the cost of care even more? Doesn't is drive down quality of care as we're too concerned with getting the codes right to notice what's going on with the patient?
    • Anonymous
      This is as bad as the MOC requirements! More work (not only all new codes, but now suffixes for each code that vary from visit to visit) without any benefit. Now every test I order has to have a new code to justify it and a suffix to say whether it was the first visit for this or a subsequent visit. When can I just focus on what's going on with my patient without all the absurd distractions of ICD10?
    • Dr. bd6047
      As an orthopedic surgeon my only complaint with ICD10 is the coding for hand fractures. It is ridiculous. Every phalange part gets its own code along with each finger, then laterality , then open or closed. It boggles my mind how many codes there are for hand fractures. As Hillary said "what difference does it make if it is the middle finger or the index finger"?

    Latest Tweets Follow