Part 3: Clinical Indicators for Acute Kidney Injury/Failure | AKI Series
Kim Carrier RHIT, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P
Director of Coding Quality Assurance
AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer
In the first parts of this series we looked at definitions of AKI/ARF, causes, coding and sequencing. In Part 3, we will look at what clinical indicators would possibly be present to support the diagnosis of AKI/ARF.
Common Clinical Indicators for Acute Kidney Injury/Failure:
- Decreased urine production-less than 0.5 mL per kg per hour for more than 6 hours
- Abdominal pain
- Metal taste in mouth
- Increased BUN
- Increased serum creatinine level-increased in greater or equal to 0.3 mg per dL or greater than or equal to 1.5 to twice the patient’s baseline
- Increased potassium
- Metabolic acidosis
- Abnormal GFR
- Chest pain/pressure
Common Clinical Indicators for Acute Tubular Necrosis:
As we learned in the other parts of this series, acute tubular necrosis (ATN) is the most common cause of SEVERE acute renal failure, more so than acute cortical necrosis or medullary necrosis. In addition to the clinical indicators above, the following would be considered for a diagnosis of ATN:
- Prolonged reduced renal blood flow (ischemic ATN)
- Exposures to nephrotoxins and medications such as gentamycin, vancomycin, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, ace inhibitors, ARBS, cisplatin
- Oliguric or on-oliguric
- May require dialysis
- Rhabdomyolysis, hemoglobinuria, aminoglycosides in toxic ATN
- Sepsis, cardiogenic shock, hypovolemia, hypotension, vasoconstriction and postoperative status in ischemic ATN
- Hypoperfusion causing cell injury in ischemic ATN
- Acute decrease in GFR from tubular epithelial cell death and obstruction from casts and debris in the tubule lumen accompanied by a sudden increase in creatinine and BUN
Common Treatments for AKI/ARF including ATN:
- Fluid resuscitation
- Correction of electrolyte imbalances
- Avoidance of nephrotoxic medications/contrast media
- Dialysis if serious
- Treatment of the underlying condition that is causing
- Optimizing cardiovascular function
Three Main Criteria Used for Validation of AKI/ARF:
- RIFLE Classification—Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss and End-stage kidney disease. Established and published in 2004. Created with primary goal to develop a consensus and have evidence-based guidelines for the treatment and prevention of AKI. (See criteria reference below)
- AKIN Classification—Acute Kidney Injury Network. Established and published in 2007. This is a modified version of the RIFLE criteria. This was established in order to increase the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis of AKI. AKIN advised that acute renal failure be changed to acute kidney injury to represent the full spectrum of renal injury (mild to severe). (See criteria reference below)
- KDIGO Classification—Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes. Released in 2012 for use and is a build off of the RIFLE and AKIN criteria already being used. This criteria reserved the baseline creatinine that was established in RIFLE and a small increase in creatinine from AKIN. This is thought to give KDIGO greater sensitivity than RIFLE or AKIN. (See criteria reference below)
All three of the criteria listed above are comparable and excellent for use in diagnosing AKI. Coders should know which criteria their facility is using for diagnosing AKI so that they can be sure that the diagnosis given by the physician is clinically validated. There is no one criteria that is mandatory for use.
One of the most challenging areas that coders face today is knowing when a query is necessary. Coders see diagnoses that are documented by the physician in the medical record, and they want to be able to report the code for the diagnosis. However coders know they must clinically validate diagnoses and if they are not able to, query or get CDI or a physician liaison involved.
There is an OCG stating: “The assignment of a diagnosis code is based on the provider’s diagnostic statement that the condition exists. The provider’s statement that the patient has a particular condition is sufficient. Code assignment is not based on clinical criteria used by the provider to establish the diagnosis.”
Does this mean coders may report any condition documented within a medical record?
No, of course not. All coders have seen copy/paste in medical records and problem lists that are brought in from previous admissions. When reporting a diagnosis, the condition must meet the reporting guidelines either for selection of PDX or as an additional SDX. The statement in the OCG above doesn’t mean that there doesn’t have to be clinical indicators for a disease present at all, only that the physician is not limited to a specific set of clinical criteria he can use to make a diagnosis. There are many “established” criteria for many diseases and AKI is no different. As above, there are three for AKI at this time.
What makes this so hard for coders is that it is difficult to question a physician’s documentation. When conflicting documentation within the record is present, that is much easier because coders are just asking for clarification. If a coder asks a physician “does this patient really have AKI/ATN?”, this could be a bad situation with a very negative outcome on the query. It is better to ask the physician what criteria were used to make the diagnosis of AKI or involve CDI or a physician liaison for help with these. Physician education is needed, and if coders don’t query, then the facilities and physicians will not know that there is a documentation issue. Physician’s should be aware and/or part of the decision on which criteria will be used for diagnosing a certain condition.
Be on the lookout for Part 4 of this series. We will be looking at what documentation is needed to report AKI, and see some examples of when a query is needed.
The information contained in this coding advice is valid at the time of posting. Viewers are encouraged to research subsequent official guidance in the areas associated with the topic as they can change rapidly.
Practices have not seen many revisions to the Evaluation and Management (E/M) office / outpatient visit guidelines in three decades – until now. As of January 1, there are new E/M coding guidelines. We’ll get to those in a bit, but first let’s look at why they changed.
Pseudoseizures are a form of non-epileptic seizure. These are difficult to diagnose and oftentimes extremely difficult for the patient to comprehend. The term “pseudoseizures” is an older term that is still used today to describe psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES).
With the implementation of ICD-10-CM came different codes and coding rules for many diagnoses. One of these is the coding of bowel obstruction when the patient presents for this condition that is caused by another condition.
This is Part 5 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. For the remaining areas we will just briefly summarize the section. Due to the intricate nature of these sections in CPT, it is recommended that the coder read the entire section notes associated with the new codes.
This is Part 4 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes in the urinary, nervous, ocular and auditory systems. There are 2 new urinary/male reproductive system codes with no revisions or deletions; 3 new female reproductive codes with 2 deletions, 0 new with 4 deleted nervous system codes with 5 revisions; 5 new eye category III codes; and finally a 2 new auditory codes with one deletion.
This is Part 3 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the cardiovascular system CPT changes. There are 5 new cardiovascular CPT codes added with 0 deletions and 4 revisions.
This is Part 2 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2021 and include some examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There are 0 new musculoskeletal CPT codes added with 0 deletions and 2 major revisions along with an extensive update to arthroscopic loose body removal requirements. For the respiratory system, there were 2 new codes, one code deletion and no revisions.
This is Part 1 of a five part series on the new 2021 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2021 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. For 2021 in general, there were 199 new CPT codes added, 54 deleted and 69 revised.
In January, new CPT codes were released. There were 248 new CPT codes added, 71 deleted and 75 revised. Most of the surgery section changes were in the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular subsections. These included procedures such as skin grafting, breast biopsies, deep drug delivery systems, tricuspid valve repairs, aortic grafts and repair of iliac artery.
We have seen many updates and changes to COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) since the pandemic started. On January 1, 2021 we will see even more changes as outlined in this post. Also the CMS MS-DRG grouper will be updated to version 38.1 to accommodate the changes.
In the previous three parts of this four-part series, we discussed the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis code changes, ICD-10-PCS procedure code changes and FY2021 IPPS changes. In this last Part 4 of the series, we will review the NTAP procedure codes and reimbursement add-on payments for FY2021.
In the previous two parts of this four part series, we discussed the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis code changes and ICD-10-PC procedure code changes. In this session we will review the major IPPS changes for FY2021.
This is Part 2 of a 4 part series on the FY2021 ICD-10 Code and IPPS changes. In this part, the ICD-10-PCS procedure codes are presented. For FY2021 ICD-10-PCS there are 78,115 total codes (FY2020 total was 77,571); 556 new codes (734 new last year in FY2020)…
This is Part 1 of a 4 part series on the FY2021 changes to ICD-10 and the IPPS. In this part, we discuss some of the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis changes. Here is the breakdown: 72,616 total ICD-10-CM codes for FY2021; 490 new codes (2020 had 273 new codes); 58 deleted codes (2020 had 21 deleted codes); 47 revised codes (2020 had 30 revised codes)
Acute pulmonary edema is the rapid accumulation of fluid within the tissue and space around the air sacs of the lung (lung interstitium). When this fluid collects in the air sacs in the lungs it is difficult to breathe. Acute pulmonary edema occurs suddenly and is life threatening.
“Client S” is a small, not-for-profit, 40 bed micro-hospital in the Southeast. HIA performed a 65-record review this year for Client S and found an opportunity with 15 of them. 9 had an increased reimbursement with a total of $43,228 found.
The coma scale codes (R40.2-) can be used in conjunction with traumatic brain injury codes, acute cerebrovascular disease or sequelae of cerebrovascular disease codes. These codes are primarily for use by trauma registries, but they may be used in any setting where this information is collected. The coma scale may also be used to assess the status of the central nervous system for other non-trauma conditions, such as monitoring patients in the intensive care unit regardless of medical condition.
In the past, there had been an Excludes1 note at I46.- Cardiac arrest that excluded R57.0, Cardiac shock. HIA had also received a letter from AHA on a case in the past that had stated that only I46.- Cardiac arrest would be coded if both were documented. In addition, the Third Quarter Coding Clinic page 26 had a similar case that asked if both could be coded, and AHA had instructed that only I46.9, cardiac arrest, cause unspecified would be coded if both were documented and that the CDC would be looking at possible revision to the Excludes1 note.
A higher CMI corresponds to increased consumption of resources and increased cost of patient care, resulting in increased reimbursement to the facility from government and private payers, like CMS. We know that documentation directly impacts coding.
Lately we have seen several cases where the endarterectomy was assigned along with the coronary artery bypass (CABG) procedure when being performed on the same vessel to facilitate the CABG. A coronary artery endarterectomy is not always performed during a CABG procedure, so when it is performed it becomes confusing as to whether to code it separately or not.
Assign code Z20.828, “Contact with and (suspected) exposure to other viral communicable diseases” for all patients who are tested for COVID-19 and the results are negative, regardless of symptoms, no symptoms, exposure or not as we are in a pandemic.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced new procedure codes for treatments of COVID-19 – effective as of August 1, 2020. Among the new codes are Section X New Technology codes for the introduction or infusion of therapeutics including Remdesivir, Sarilumab, Tocilizumab, transfusion of convalescent plasma, as well as introduction of any other or new therapeutic substances for the treatment of COVID-19.
One common element in many value-based programs is risk adjustment using Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) to create a Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) score. This method ranks diagnoses into categories that represent conditions with similar cost patterns.
In previous parts of this series we looked at the definitions of AKI/ARF, causes, coding and sequencing, and the common clinical indicators that patients present with that are diagnosed with this condition. In Part 4, we will look at the documentation that should be present to report the diagnosis without fear of denial, as well as when a query is needed to clarify the diagnosis.
If the facility does a COVID-19 test, and test is negative, do I need a diagnosis code. The answer is yes, you will report a Z-code. The Z-code depends on the record documentation and circumstances of testing. For any patient receiving a COVID-19 test, if negative, there MUST e a Z-code to describe why the test was taken. (Test negative for COVID-19 and MD does not override negative results).
The FY2021 IPPS Proposed Rule is out and here are some highlights from it regarding ICD-10 Code proposals. We will know if these changes are permanent after the public comment period is over on July 10, 2020 and CMS prepares the Final Rule, usually out by August 1.
As discussed in Part 1 of this series, AKI/ARF is a common diagnosis that coders see daily. In Part 2, we are going to focus on the different types/specificity of AKI/ARF. We’ll learn what they mean, as well as how to code the diagnosis.
This is part 1 in a series focused on coding of acute kidney injury (AKI) and/or acute renal failure (ARF). AKI/ARF is reported often, but is also one of the most common diagnosis found in denials.
With the proliferation of COVID-19 cases, we thought we would put together a quick reference listing of some of the common scenarios that coders have asked about. As with all coding, coders should follow Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting and the COVD-19 Frequently Asked Questions document by the AHA.