4.7 Article

The 6-Min Walk Test Clinical and Research Role, Technique, Coding, and Reimbursement

期刊

CHEST
卷 135, 期 5, 页码 1345-1352

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.07-1682

关键词

cardiopulmonary exercise test; congestive heart failure; COPD; correct coding initiative; Current Procedural Terminology; exercise pulse oximetry; exercise tests; exercise tolerance; hypoxemia; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; insurance; Medicare; mortality; physician reimbursement; physician services; practice management; pulmonary hypertension; respiratory function tests; 6-min walk distance; 6-min walk test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

FEV1 is recommended for rating the severity of obstructive and restrictive pulmonary diseases, but it only, moderately correlates with quality of life, mortality, and functional status. The 6-min walk test (6MWT) has been increasingly used in clinical practice and research studies as an objective measurement of functional status in patients with moderate-to-severe impairment. This low complexity test measures the distance a patient can quickly walk back and forth in a 30-m (100-foot) corridor in a period of 6 min, referred to as the 6-min walk distance (6MWD). The 6MWD, and in some circumstances oxygen desaturation during the 6MWT, are useful to assess response to medical interventions, to assess prognosis in various conditions, and as a single measurement of functional status. Strictly scripted test instructions and encouragement at baseline and at each minute of exercise is vital to obtain reproducible results. The 6MWT is reported using Current Procedural Terminology code 94620 (simple pulmonary stress test). This code is also appropriate for other simple exercise tests, including oxygen titration (if additional parameters are measured), exercise-induced bronchospasm evaluation using pre- and post-exercise spirometry, and exercise prescription for pulmonary rehabilitation. Use of code 94620 to bill for services must be supported by significant documentation. (CHEST 2009; 135:1345-1352)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据