Hello
ejhahn, If you review my comments. I wasn't stating you were personally lazy. Merely stating that this an exciting opportunity for educational opportunities and apologize if I came across otherwise here.
I love education and training. Pathology is my only passion and my forever career. I have been waist deep here since 2012.
What was the final interpretation here? The pathologist's isn't just preparing the slide(s). They (that pathologist) are providing their professional interpretation. That is their final diagnosis and RVU's.
In your coding opinion here; Is it codable based on ICD guidelines?
If I receive something (BCC?, SCC?) of this nature as the indication for visit? It is not useable. It is not definitive. That again, is why I am being kind explaining that if your accessioners don't know. Who knows here. No one doesn't "know" until they really "don't know". This is not a common thing any health facility would accept in the pathology specialty here.
If I had accessioned either possibility, I would have kicked it back to referring facility for an appropriate diagnosis. You don't get to offer a rule out diagnosis on the specimen indication. They (referring folks) have plenty of opportunities to discuss AK, lesion, elastosis, melanin issues, crust, inflammation, hyperplasia for the reason for visit but give questionable indications.
What if Dr. Pathologist's Dr. Cookie Monster stated that Patient was "Consistent with BCC of left arm" OR "consistent with SCC of left arm" You SERIOUSLY have nothing to fall back on here.
I am hopeful I provided insight on my alignment of thinking here. I don't accession cases. Can't code that. I purely help pathology specialty along with all my rationale. Please comment if you have more questions okay.
Evening,
Dana