Submit your Product Ideas to the Practice Fusion team for consideration. Your ideas make a better EHR for everyone. If you have a technical or workflow related question, please visit our Help Center.

Sort Frequent Diagnosis Codes Differently

When searching for a frequent dx code I have to scroll through every one because it is currently sorting by the code rather than the descriptor. I would like this to be alphabetical. It serves no use currently as it takes less time to search for it in the search box than scroll down through the list.

80 votes
Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: sso facebook google
Signed in as (Sign out)

We’ll send you updates on this idea

Debby Braiman shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →

22 comments

Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: sso facebook google
Signed in as (Sign out)
Submitting...
  • Dr Rahul Gor commented  · 

    I love the new interface! When can we apply this to modifiers? If we use 25 and 59 over and over it should be right at the top along with rt and lt...as an example, of course.

  • Kevin J. Rodbell, MD commented  · 

    It would be really helpful to be able to manually select and manually arrange my favorite ICD codes.

  • Dr Erica Vislobokova commented  · 

    I agree. It would be great to have it organized by frequency of use or even better allow us to have a customizable pane in which we could move codes up/down or even delete from the list.

  • Eugen Luis commented  · 

    All list: Dx, Rx, should be alphabetical.

  • William Gilmer commented  · 

    it makes sense to list by descriptor, rather than code number. Also would be great to have PF "learn" our most frequent codes and place them at the top of the list of options as we begin typing the descriptor. Very few of us will memorize ICD10 codes, unless we are a super specialist. Make it easy for the rest of us please

  • Glaucoma Doc commented  · 

    I'm surprise that no one has suggested the option of being able to CUSTOMIZE the list! Ordering by frequency is also a nice feature.
    Alphabetical, I'm afraid, is not as useful, because we would have to scroll quite a bit, even if we know where the diagnosis is.
    I would really like to be able to customize the frequent diagnosis list to put things where I want to put them. As it is, the frequently used list is almost worthless to me, because I still have to scan the list to find the diagnosis I want, which takes way too much time (I'm better off searching for it!).

  • Kevin J. Rodbell, MD commented  · 

    I think we can conclude that different people have different workflows when it comes to coding. The unifying factor is that we all need some degree of control in how the codes display. I personally recommend giving several options of how to list and display them, and specifically giving the option of choosing one's own favorite codes (maybe it's not in your list because you keep wishing you could use it, but you can never think of how to find it!) and manually designating the list in whatever own order that works for the individual.

  • Dr Angus Matheson commented  · 

    I think it is now alphabetical. I preferred lists to have my most common on top, and my least common (of the 20 or so most common) on the bottom.

  • Deb Martin commented  · 

    We have alot of duplicate diagnosis codes because we are no longer able to sort them. Alpha or numeric would be helpful because right now we can't do either.

  • Dr Carol Nason commented  · 

    Rather than alpha or numerical listing, I'd MUCH prefer listing them by frequency of use. Most specialities have a short list of "frequent" diagnoses, and only occasionally go outside of that list. Sorting by frequency will have your most popularly used diagnoses always showing at the top of the list.

  • Dr Arnold Wolf commented  · 

    We have mastered the switch to ICD10-CM and PCS codes from a free site (ICD10data.com) which is a total and easily understood function at this time for our speciality. When might we be able to enter ICD10-CM codes in Practice Fusion?

  • Dr Arnold Wolf commented  · 

    Our office is ready to test ICD10-CM and PCS codes. When will PF be ready to insert these codes into superbills? We would like this function to be ready ASAP.

  • Anonymous commented  · 

    I agree with Dr Venetos comment and actually that would have been my suggestion. It would be very helpful to be able to flip from alphabetical, to frequency, etc. Depending on the encounter and what one is looking for, one list is more helpful than another. I would also like to be able to delete certain codes, as Dr Goldstein commented.

  • John Venetos M.D. commented  · 

    We could have a setting to change the way that this list is sorted so that we could have different options including
    1. Frequency of Use(MOST DOCS PREFER THIS!!!!!
    2. Alphabetical
    3. by the code.

    A search box that is presently available should be kept

  • Dr. Jacob B. Goldstein commented  · 

    We should be able to delete diagnoses from this list. Some diagnoses are entered corresponding to the patient's chronic diagnoses, but have no place in the "Frequent" diagnosis list. It would be much more helpful if this list was a list of diagnoses that is used on a regular basis as opposed to a list of ANY and ALL diagnoses that get entered in the EMR.

  • Beaner1 commented  · 

    Prefer frequency of use listing. Or option to chose. Numerical is much slower.

  • Dr Carol Nason commented  · 

    Agreed 100% that Frequent Diagnoses should be sorted BY FREQUENCY, secondarily alpha, and never numerically....especially since we're quickly moving to ICD10 or Sno, it's nearly useless.

  • cshekar commented  · 

    Alphabetical is certainly better than how it is now, but the okd PF used to populate iCD on most frequently used. I would like to have that back, the present list is not at all helpful.

  • Ms Cordelia Murphy commented  · 

    Perhaps we could have a setting to change the way that this list is sorted so that we could have different options including Alphabetical, Frequency of Use, and by the code. A search box might also work if responsive enough.

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base