Rare and strange ICD-10 codes

johndcook.com

33 points·EvanAnderson··12 comments

My favorite: Burn due to water-skis on fire, initial encounter V91.07XA

Y38.5X3D Terrorism involving nuclear weapons, terrorist injured, subsequent encounter

A small note, in ICD parlance "subsequent encounter" refers to a doctor seeing a patient again after the initial diagnose.[0]

[0]https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/view/ArticleId/34855/C...

Another interesting one

W61.62XD Struck by duck, subsequent encounter

Note: "subsequent encounter" refers to the type of care being provided, not the patient's encounter with the duck. https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/view/ArticleId/34855/C...

Is there also a "struck by duck like" ? For when you are struck by a nin certified duck ?

“T63.81 -Toxic effect of contact with venomous frog”

There are no venomous frogs.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/can-frogs-be-venomous.html

"There are currently only two species of frog known to be venomous: Bruno's casque-headed frog (Aparasphenodon brunoi) and Greening's frog (Corythomantis greeningi)."

Ohhh - the paper presenting venomous frogs was presented in August 2015, while the code for venomous frogs became effective on October 1st, 2015.

Coincidence? Or is the code just really good about keeping on top of things?

I’m pretty sure there was a code for venomous frogs before 2015, though.

Same event triggered both?

Researcher got bitten and there was no ICD-10 code, so it was submitted for inclusion, and the researcher managed to write their experience up and publish in the meantime?

The codes for non-venomous frogs were introduced on the same day, so I think it was just frog day at the IDC.

I first heard about the venomous frogs code before 2015. I think it wasn’t so much an addition as reorganization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com