RE: Date-of-service confusion
Yes it does. Even though our patients are preregistered, when the actual
operation, clinic visit or hospital stay occurs the admissions department
re-registers them with the actual date of service. Even with courier
delayed specimens, the date of service is the date the specimen is obtained,
not the received date. The received date is not the critical date for
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Knisely [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 2:59 AM
> To: Horn, Hazel V; 'Weems, Joyce'; 'Histonet'
> Subject: Date-of-service confusion
> Non-urgent biopsies performed under imaging guidance may be arranged here
> several weeks in advance of the actual date of biopsy.
> The requisition is dated mid-January, the date of receipt of specimen
> And then there are the courier-delayed specimens that trickle from outside
> facilities several days after the fact.
> Hazel, does your system make allowances for this sort of thing?
> Alex K
> At 15:28 14/02/03 -0600, Horn, Hazel V wrote:
> >Our reqs have 2 dates on them. The date we received the specimen and
> >date it was collected. The date of service is really the original date
> >collection, not when we receive the test. At least that is my
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Weems, Joyce [SMTP:JWEEMS@sjha.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:40 PM
> >> To: 'Histonet'
> >> Subject: DOS
> >> Regarding the new regulation about date of service for pathology
> >> specimens,
> >> what do you count as the date of collection for a new specimen being
> >> accessioned?
> >> I am asking this because outpatients are registered for the date their
> >> specimen is collected, which very often is a date prior to receipt of
> >> specimen. This dates crosses to the laboratory computer system. If we
> >> accession the specimen with the collect date and make the DOS as the
> >> accession date for us, the hospital computer system sees that as an
> >> and kicks out the charge.
> >> The new regulation about the DOS for pathology is confusing, but I
> >> interpret
> >> it to have been established for cases that are months or years old, in
> >> which
> >> additional testing (e.g. Her2Neu) is being performed.
> >> If this makes sense to anyone, can you please tell me how you interpret
> >> the
> >> regulation? :>)
> >> Thanks, j
> >> Joyce Weems
> >> Pathology Manager
> >> Saint Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta
> >> 404-851-7376
> >> 404-851-7831 - fax
> Alex Knisely, MD
> Consultant Histopathologist
> Institute of Liver Studies
> King's College Hospital
> Denmark Hill
> London SE5 9RS UK
> +44 (0)20 - 7346 - 3125 telefax
> +44 (0)20 - 7346 - 4627 office
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>