It is a significant change, but I would evaluate him for 30 days, not 14, to ensure that he will not just go right back down, which is what they usually do.  If this guy was comatose for two weeks and is now climbing back into sanity, it is very likely that his ammonia levels are not going to be controlled, and he's going to tank again.  I would make a note in the chart what you believe will happen, and that you expect this improvement to be temporary.  I WOULD definetly update the care plans for the CNA's though.  I had three patients, none of whom came in comatose, who were on enulose (or those other names for generic) who had pretty bad labs, and all of them died within 90 days.  Good luck.  Be careful to do scrupulous cognitive testing every week and document the results, as well as c/o itching, skin condition, etc.
 
Corey
----- Original Message -----
From: Faye Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: sign change or not need help

I would not do a significant change until he plateaus, and one would hope he will continue to improve r/t rehab.  I usually just make sure the expected improvement is care planned.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: sign change or not need help

 

hi

     i have resident who has end stage cirrhosis. when he was admitted approx 20 or more days ago his was semi comatose. in the past 2 wks he came around and is receiving pt 5 x wks. his 30 day is pending shortly do i have to code this 30 day an sign change also because his rug changes for payment his last mds was cbi ? 

     it sounds like it to me for an improvement.  OR not  since it is expected that his condition will flucutate due to his dx and NH4 levels go up and down?  please guide me. thanks nancy


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 2/24/2004

Reply via email to