1 |
For “legacy” specifications: Codes involving concepts that were never intended to be part of the QI specifications; addressing these recommendations would theoretically align the ICD‐10‐CM/PCS version of the QIs as closely as possible to the ICD‐9‐CM version |
The mapped code is specific to the incorrect gender |
The mapped code is specific to an incorrect age group (e.g., adult condition for a pediatric concept) |
The mapped code is an unnecessary component of a cluster that is better captured by other code(s) |
The mapped code is included in a different code set (redundant) |
The mapped code involves a newly classified clinical concept that does not fit with the intent of this set |
The mapped code is specific to an incorrect anatomic site |
The mapped code pertains to a specific (and incorrect) time duration whereas the original code is expressly non‐specific |
2 |
For “enhanced” specifications: Codes involving clinical concepts that can be specified more precisely in the ICD‐10‐CM/PCS version of the indicator specifications, either because of limitations of ICD‐9‐CM or enhanced capabilities of ICD‐10‐CM/PCS; addressing these recommendations would theoretically optimize the indicators for use with ICD‐10‐CM/PCS (as version 6.0 of the QIs) |
The mapped code is not as specific to the intent of the code set as other code(s) |
The unmapped code represents a clinical concept that fits with the intent of this set |
3 |
For “deferred” consideration: Codes involving more complex mapping problems or entailing a fundamental re‐examination of prior choices regarding the design of the indicator; addressing these recommendations would be outside the scope of the conversion process, though potentially warranted at a future time |
The unmapped code represents a clinical concept that might fit with the intent of this set |
The mapped code arguably does not fit with the intent of this set |