Death by Flaming Water Ski, and Other Misfortunes | Hacker News Reader

Death by Flaming Water Ski, and Other Misfortunes

newyorker.com

36 pointsbenbreen22 comments

Open articleView on HN

Don't these come from some kind of base grammar? I'd assume they'd just have something like:

10. - Bitten By

11. - Struck By

..and

a12 - Orca

b36 - Macaw

So 11.a12 'struck by orca' would just be a funny consequence of having a large dictionary, not a sign that the codes were really inflated.

Pretty much. There's a syntax and grammar to the syllables involved that leads to the ones that will probably never happen, but are still amusing to read. With its layout, you can determine what the injury is, if it was intentional, how many times the person was injured, etc. It's a pretty dense, nicely designed coding format that some people just don't understand.

Reading the other comments, this is apparently how they are designed. Except, instead of objects and verbs it is a sequence of related instances.

So apparently Rand Paul said "I’ve asked physicians all over the country: Have you ever seen an injury from a macaw?"

What a myopic and short-sighted way of viewing the world. I note, with interest, that he never said "I've asked physicians all over the country: Have you ever seen a child with Abderhalden Kaufmann Lignac syndrome?".

I suppose that in his quest for "small government" he will shut down the Genetic and Rare Diseases (GARD) Information Center. [1] After all, most physicians won't have to deal with many of these diseases in their lifetime.

I'm telling you, it's Obamacare run amok!

1. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov

Presumably the "burning water-skis" cited refer instead to burning personal watercraft, also known by the trade name of "Jet Ski". A water ski is a wooden or plastic board that is mostly submerged in water while in use, making it quite difficult to burn. The whole ICD exercise seems to be about the accurate use of the English language, so this error does not inspire confidence.

It's water skis. V90 is Drowning/Submersion, .2 says that the craft was on fire, 7 says it's water skis, X is there because there's no need for further description, and A is the first occurrence. If you look through the whole list of drowning incidents, you see they all follow the same pattern.

http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/V90-V94/V90-

OK you've convinced me; this makes no sense. Where is V90.07?

I don't know. This was just a website I found that seemed to have a fairly complete listing, such as someone being repeatedly beaten with a portuguese man-o-war [1]. Some of these are rather ridiculous, but it is well categorized and thorough ridiculousness. Either that, or someone /has/ been beaten with a rather deadly critter, which sounds more like the plot element of a comedy horror film than anything.

[1] http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/T51-T65/T63/T...

What I meant was that apparently they have enough editorial oversight to realize that it's silly to talk about water skis "overturning". However their editorial judgement apparently does not encompass the impossibility of water skis burning.

Have you checked the ICD10 entry for burning waterskis? Specifically: Do the skis have to also be in the water?

http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/V90-V94/V91-/...

You're using a different code! b^) Of course one might suffer burns due to contact with burning material. (Although in that case, why call out water skis but not e.g. coffee tables, which also might burn?) Upthread, however, we were talking about drowning due to burning water skis. That would indicate skis in use in water.

The whole problem stems from classifying water skis as transportation, which they are not. Like wakeboards, kneeboards, towable tubes, etc. they are recreational equipment used in conjunction with powered watercraft, which are transportation.

Considering the code before it is "V91.06: Burn due to (nonpowered) inflatable craft on fire" I think it is referring to the skis.

Inflatable actually implies a burning inner-tube or raft.

The volume could certainly become vastly more entertaining if they could be persuaded to provide one documented case/entry.

For that, your best source would be an EMT friend, access to an EMT journal, and/or a friend known for doing stupid things. Like I know someone who has in their medical history treatment for code T19.1XXS [1]. For another example, an EMT friend got published in a journal for EMTs regarding treatment with a S71.121A [2] case involving some guy impaling his thigh with a children's swingset. The patient's only response to how it happened was, "I don't know, man." People do dumb stuff, and you'd be surprised as to how often some of the incredibly unlikely codes actually get used.

[1] http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/T15-T19/T19-/...

[2] http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/S70-S79/S71-/...

> Asked about “drowning and submersion due to falling or jumping from burning water-skis,” Buckholtz replied, “You can’t stop, drop, and roll in the ocean.”)

Given the title, I am disappointed at the lack of a funny anecdote about burning water-skis. People do jump through rings of fire, but I don't expect that water-skis would ignite quickly enough.

Consider skis with pyrotechnics strapped on for a show. It could happen and we can all sleep well tonight knowing that our medical industry has a way to keep track of these incidents when they do happen.

OK, I'm clearly out of touch about water-ski shows and fire.

http://www.waterskishowsinc.com/?page=About%20Us

I'm not at all an expert in this area, but it seems like the codes are poorly designed.

Changing them to be less descriptive, and allowing for more codes to be applied to a single case would be more efficient. "Bitten by" and "Orca" should be two different entities applied to the same case, and together they describe the incident.

Although given that these codes are probably used in hundreds of thousands of systems, changing their fundamental structure is probably nearly impossible.

That's exactly how the codes are designed. Categories, sub-categories, etc to describe what caused it, what damage it did, and how many times it did it. For example, let's take an example of an "Angel of Death" situation, where a nurse has been repeatedly overdosing a patient with morphine in order to try to kill them. You're going to want to discuss all of the details of what went on, so you choose T41.1X3S [1], which is Poisoning, or other effects from anesthetics. First you look up where poisoning is, T41. Then you look up the code for anesthetics, which is 1X. It's intentional, so that's class 3. From there, you can describe each incident, A for the first, D for the second, and S for any incidents after that. If you look at other areas, like an insect bite, you'd do similar, and some up with S80.262A [2].

Standardizing the format for the codes is really useful, because it can give precise instructions as to what happened. But, you can quickly figure out what happened byt the first code, with the code after the decimal point giving the exact details, if needed. Yes, it allows for ridiculous combinations, but any decently designed charting system has similar. Medicare, for example, has beneficiary codes extending to Second disabled surviving divorced husband [3].

[1] http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/T36-T50/T41-/... [2] http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/S80-S89/S80-/... [3] http://www.ncdoi.com/_Publications/Beneficiary%20Identificat...

> together they describe

1) The objective is a single code, for whatever reasons, probably valid.

2) If I number all the words in a dictionary, I'm not designing a code, although 359060.1364734.128378 may translate to "bitten by orca" or "bit into mushroom"

So, to bill for Medicare and Medicaid services you need to use ICD ( https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/ProviderResources.... ). ICD-10 is effective October 1, 2015. Here is the quick start pdf https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/Downloads/ICD10Qui...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com