The official thread where everyone tries to catch up to Joe, and Windy keeps track of who posts on the even K's

Status
Not open for further replies.
View attachment 242977
Here is the report my wife got from yesterday. They clearly put on there about essure, I told her she should at least talk to a lawyer.
Ahhh... one rarely sees a radiology report that provides so clear an opinion!

“Clinical history”: this is the reason given by the requesting physician to justify the procedure (looks like a CT report?) First sentence states that the requesting physician believes that there was something left in patient’s (Tiffany’s) body after a surgery. Second sentence indicates concern that the problem surgery was the removal of the bladder simulator, such as a retained electronic lead.

But the last sentence of the Findings indicates that instead of a remnant of the bladder stim removal, it actually looks more like an Essure fragment, which occurred earlier.

The Impression states that the study is on a patient who had had a bladder stim removed, and that there is a metallic fragment of an Essure device over the left hip joint.

I don’t think that in my 22 years in HIM coding I’ve ever seen so damning a radiology report. It’s usually something like “metallic fragment observed in soft tissue area over left acetabulum, further clinical follow-up recommended.” And the only code that could be assigned is radiological anomaly in abdominal region. (Or some verbiage like that - I’m retired and trying my best to forget all this stuff.) I’m serious - you just don’t see such a conclusive radiology report. @Orangeredblooded

One of the bad features of the Essure devices is that they break up, and the fragments pierce the Fallopian tube or uterus, and then they wander around the abdominal or pelvic cavity, wreaking havoc. And depending on the individual’s immune system, there can be a devastating immune reaction as the body tries to fight off the foreign body.
 
Ahhh... one rarely sees a radiology report that provides so clear an opinion!

“Clinical history”: this is the reason given by the requesting physician to justify the procedure (looks like a CT report?) First sentence states that the requesting physician believes that there was something left in patient’s (Tiffany’s) body after a surgery. Second sentence indicates concern that the problem surgery was the removal of the bladder simulator, such as a retained electronic lead.

But the last sentence of the Findings indicates that instead of a remnant of the bladder stim removal, it actually looks more like an Essure fragment, which occurred earlier.

The Impression states that the study is on a patient who had had a bladder stim removed, and that there is a metallic fragment of an Essure device over the left hip joint.

I don’t think that in my 22 years in HIM coding I’ve ever seen so damning a radiology report. It’s usually something like “metallic fragment observed in soft tissue area over left acetabulum, further clinical follow-up recommended.” And the only code that could be assigned is radiological anomaly in abdominal region. (Or some verbiage like that - I’m retired and trying my best to forget all this stuff.) I’m serious - you just don’t see such a conclusive radiology report. @Orangeredblooded

One of the bad features of the Essure devices is that they break up, and the fragments pierce the Fallopian tube or uterus, and then they wander around the abdominal or pelvic cavity, wreaking havoc. And depending on the individual’s immune system, there can be a devastating immune reaction as the body tries to fight off the foreign body.
I thought it was odd, and them telling her it could've caused the problems. Idk much about stuff like this, but I told her it seemed clear enough for a lawyer to work with, especially since there's such a history of problems with the essure.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top