Removal of a device + infecton

lillian.dickey@providence.orglillian.dickey@providence.org
in Clinical & Coding
A device is removed secondary to an infection. Is this the same as saying the device caused the infection?

I read this as: An infection was present, so the device was removed - not necessarily that the device itself caused the infection.

An infection can occur around a device without the device causing the infection, such that the provider needs to clarify the causal relationship, right?

Comments

  • afrady@blr.comafrady@blr.com
    I agree with you.  The cause and effect relationship is absent in that documentation and I (personally) would not be comfortable making such an assumption either way.  
  • lprescott1lprescott1
    You are correct- the provider needs to directly link the two. I have seen devices removed due to to the fact there is infection surrounding the device, the thought being the device will harbor the infective agent.
  • lillian.dickey@providence.orglillian.dickey@providence.org
    Thank you both.
Sign In or Register to comment.