There are some days that I really do think that some people just won't be happy with IntelliTrak until we implement the oft-requested Mind Reading feature!  I'm not quite sure how we're going to implement it, but I certainly think that we'll need some form of electronic feedback loop to go along with it.

One of my favorite requests that goes down this line is the use of generic diagnosis codes.  Frequently, the best reasoning we're given is that the practitioner is too busy to use the correct diagnosis codes.

I think by now we all know that in the United States, we use the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification or ICD-9-CM, to indicate the diagnoses associated with our patients.  The majority of ICD-9 codes are 3, 4, and 5 digits long and have a lengthy description.  Sometimes....VERY LENGTHY... and thus highly specific.

At the opposite end of the spectrum we have a large number of 'unspecified' codes littered throughout the classification system.  They are codes which are designated with the abbreviations NOS and NEC and for the most part do NOT justify the medical necessity for most of the work we perform on our patients.

NOS, short for not otherwise specified, is the code to be used by a coder who has been provided insufficient detail by the clinician to code the diagnosis out to a more specific disease.

NEC, the abbreviation for not elsewhere classified, is found on ill-defined terms that should alert the coder to find a more specific code, because one probably exists.  This isn't always the case, and it is the frequent culprit when the clinician asks for us to load this 'generic' diagnosis code into their coding short list.

All that said, I guess we will have to ask the clinicians to pause, take a second, and select a more specific code, at least until we get the mind Reading feature fully tested.  At the end of the day, they really do owe it to themselves, the hospitals where they practice, and their patients to select the most appropriate code.