Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
We upgraded this weekend our CPS system to SP10. Today, we have "gone live" for our clinical providers to choose the problem using ICD-10 codes. We have noticed that descriptions of codes DO NOT state they are unspecified. For example, Carpal Tunnel without laterality description should state Carpal Tunnel Unspecified. There also is a description for Carpal Tunnel Bilateral. There is no legitimate code in ICD-10 for Carpal Tunnel Bilateral. It gives the illusion that the correct problem is being chosen for billing purposes but it will result in a unspecified ICD-10 code.
Posted : September 1, 2015 5:35 am
We upgraded our test system and are seeing the same thing. It looks like they removed the reference list that our providers are used to using and in place put the MQIC list that the smart list search used to find problems. This poses a big issue because you do not know if the description and the code are actually correct. You just know that the code is a valid or billable code. For us if you search for physical exam, this pulls up many descriptions that link to Z00.00 and one that links to Z98.89(which is incorrect). How is the provider going to know what is correct and not correct when they are just looking at the description. Same thing if you just type in Z98.89 you get a whole array of different descriptions. (That is just one example of many)
Also in order to see the actual dx description from the book you need to go back and look in administration at the diagnosis codes because you cannot pull it up from the reference list. I was hoping to have better search capabilities using keywords, not it bringing up all these descriptions. I am hoping the Advanced problem search is better for SP10.
Posted : September 1, 2015 6:03 am
I noticed that the wording in GE matches exactly the wording in the ICD10 book, verbatim. No more "what we call it in the real world".
Posted : September 1, 2015 6:20 am
I started a discussion about this on the ge site, please go voice your concern there so it gets more attention. I think it is a big problem, they don't think so.
https://engage.gehealthcare.com/thread/3792
Posted : September 1, 2015 6:40 am
Hi Peter,
I posted to your thread days ago in hopes of that as well and there has been no response from GE or anyone else. I also added it in the CPS ICD-10 Community as well but no responses there. 🙁
https://engage.gehealthcare.com/thread/3777
Posted : September 1, 2015 6:49 am
petemarkey & bomalley, I'm on-board with your Community posts, trying to get them to realize the issue and step up. I see this as false advertising and misleading by GE. Such inaccuracies will lead providers to code incorrectly.
Posted : September 2, 2015 3:40 am
Here is another Community thread that may be of interest to read. It contains a reference to an SPR.
Posted : September 2, 2015 3:45 am
Thank you Sam for the link. I just think this is a big mess and I am not sure how I am going to roll this out to my providers and tell them they no longer have a way to look up the accurate description of a code utilizing the reference list. Not to mention my billers are going to kill me because when we get rejections because our providers picked the wrong dx code they may not be able to figure out the correct code to use either. My initial hope was that they would improve the search function so that if you typed in broken arm it would pull up the appropriate description and code that would associate with broken arm (not necessarily named broken arm but that would be a keyword). Not pull up 30 different descriptions of the same code because they pulled the top 500 list from MQIC. I hope they can at least add the book description back into the reference list.
Posted : September 2, 2015 7:05 am
