The best place and time to enter what the actual procedure was is during the report portion, and I can see how that could be done with a question field or two, but I think we need a more formal structure, particularly for being able to provide an easy overview of a patient. I would envision a Procedure List similar to a Master Problem List, but my ideal would actually be a way to overlay them on one another to display the chronology of the past history. When was the ligament injury diagnosed? Vs when was the surgery done to correct it? When was the diagnosis of delayed union made relative to when the fracture was repaired? When was that mass removed relative to the diagnosis of lung mets? For me, as a surgeon, I would like it to be a Master Problems and Procedures List, because the chronology of the procedures is of equal importance as the problem, particularly if the problem is resolved by the procedure Simon Roe On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Yeast Munn Jennifer Lee < jl.munn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Simon, > > We get around this in UVIS using questions related to a surgery report and > were planning on continuing in VetView by harnessing some of the better > ways that questions can be handled in digital documents. The way it works > now is that in the event that we have a more generic procedure that creates > the request, we have questions that allow you to define what specifically > was done. This does essentially create a kind of procedure list at the > level of the request. In UVIS the visualization is a bit hidden, but in > VetView, we’re thinking it won’t be so hidden (theoretical at this point > though). So we agree with you that this is important for services that may > have less specific billable items. > > The question for clinical people is probably more where would this > information be better visualized? Does the way the problem list work > translate well for a list of procedures as well or does it make more sense > to be associated to a request or even some other way? From a technical > point of view, there is probably even a way to get to where you want to be > using the infrastructure that is already in place for Digital Documents > (VetView, if you’re in on the conversation, correct me if I am wrong). Is > that enough or does it need to be something definitively apart like the > master problem list? > > Jennifer > > On Oct 8, 2014, at 7:44, Simon Roe <Simon_Roe@xxxxxxxx<mailto: > Simon_Roe@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > The problem with using a billable event for procedure is that there will > be many instances where it will not be specific enough. The procedure > request does not always fully reflect what was done during the procedure, > because we don't always know beforehand. Information has to be entered > after the event has occurred. It will work for some. I would strongly > support the development of a Procedures List for all to use > > Simon Roe > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Shirley T. Arck <sarck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:sarck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > I forwarded the post to Kathy Ellis from VMDB. Here is her response: > > As a response to this person's post, it is possible to have Procedure list > similar to a diagnosis list using SNOMED. Currently the coders code the > surgical procedures as well as certain other procedures, such as Chemo. > VMDB has thrown around the idea of creating a procedure listing. What > would be best is for the EHR to use charge capture, automatically coding > charges that are specific enough to be coded without manually being done > (example: spays, castrations, tie-back surgery, etc.). VetStar currently > does this. What we need is a VMDB master procedure list that institutions > could then tie into their charges, surgery reports, etc. > > > From: vvcemr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vvcemr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [mailto:vvcemr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vvcemr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] > On Behalf Of Shirley T. Arck > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 3:34 PM > To: vvcemr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vvcemr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [vvcemr] Re: Diagnoses, Problems and Procedures > > I see a need for the separate MPL as well. It’s an important part of our > current paper medical record. I really like your idea about structuring it > similarly to the dx process. Would be nice if there could also be some way > to automate addition of some select problems to the MPL based on a > particular procedure that was done. > > Shirley > > > Shirley Arck, PharmD, FSVHP > Administrator > Veterinary Health Center > at Kansas State University > 1800 Denison Ave. > Manhattan, KS 66506 > Tel: 785-532-5708<tel:785-532-5708> > Fax: 785-532-4309<tel:785-532-4309> > > > > From: vvcemr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vvcemr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [mailto:vvcemr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Roe > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 8:00 AM > To: vvcemr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vvcemr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [vvcemr] Diagnoses, Problems and Procedures > > It appears that, as in UVIS, it will be difficult to find the meaningful > Procedures for a patient in VetView. It will be very easy to list > everything that is categorized as a procedure and has a procedure code, but > these are of limited help when a clinician is trying to understand the > previous management of a case. An example would be Exploratory Laparotomy. > This will be a procedure, but doesn't tell the clinician what was done. It > might lead to a diagnosis of Liver Carcinoma, but was it > removed/biopsied/?? There is a need for greater clarity, just as we have in > the Problem/Diagnosis process. We need a Major Procedures list. Currently, > on paper, I enter the major procedures in the Master Problem List. So, > after a problem of hip dysplasia, I will add "Total Hip Replacement, BFX, > Left". If the dog is later lame on the right hind limb, it could still be > hip dysplasia. If he is lame on the left hind limb, the differential > diagnosis list is quite different. > > While it is possible to continue this approach in an EMR, it muddies the > MPL and makes an entry that doesn't fit the SOAP process. It would be > better to have a separate list. My thoughts are that it would be very like > the Diagnosis process where there would be a major term, the ability to add > qualifiers, and a free text comment if needed. > > I would love to hear thoughts from others about this concept, and other > suggestions for how this could be done > > Simon Roe > > -- > Dr. Simon Roe, BVSc, PhD, Diplomate ACVS > Professor, Small Animal Orthopaedic Surgery > Randall B Terry Companion Animal Veterinary Medical Center > 1052 William Moore Drive, > Raleigh, NC 27607 > > Ph: 919-513-6334<tel:919-513-6334> office 919-513-6588<tel:919-513-6588> > clinic > > "Live fully. Love wastefully. Be all that you can be." adapted from Bishop > Spong > > 'All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are > sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records > Law and may be disclosed to third parties.' > > > > -- > Dr. Simon Roe, BVSc, PhD, Diplomate ACVS > Professor, Small Animal Orthopaedic Surgery > Randall B Terry Companion Animal Veterinary Medical Center > 1052 William Moore Drive, > Raleigh, NC 27607 > > Ph: 919-513-6334 office 919-513-6588 clinic > > "Live fully. Love wastefully. Be all that you can be." adapted from Bishop > Spong > > 'All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are > sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records > Law and may be disclosed to third parties.' > > > -- Dr. Simon Roe, BVSc, PhD, Diplomate ACVS Professor, Small Animal Orthopaedic Surgery Randall B Terry Companion Animal Veterinary Medical Center 1052 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607 Ph: 919-513-6334 office 919-513-6588 clinic "Live fully. Love wastefully. Be all that you can be." adapted from Bishop Spong 'All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.'