Part 3: Coder and CDI Communication Example | CDI Series
RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS‑P, CIRCC
Executive Director Of Education
AHIMA‑Approved ICD‑10‑CM/PCS Trainer and Ambassador
This is the final part of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) professionals. In this part, we provide an actual example of an effective communication response to CDI.
Principal Diagnosis Mismatch Communication Example
The CDI professional has chosen E87.6, hypokalemia as the principal diagnosis which leads to DRG 640. This is a DRG Mismatch. Coder’s diagnosis is A41.9, for neutropenic sepsis leading to DRG 871. There were queries on the record by CDI that were not answered by the physician.
This is an example of what a good communication back to the CDI professional would look like, based on an actual mismatch case received by a coder:
“Dear CDI professional (insert actual name of person):
I have chosen A41.9, sepsis as the principal diagnosis for neutropenic sepsis which leads to DRG 871. Neutropenic sepsis was the most resource intense DRG requiring IV antibiotics throughout the hospitalization and appeared to be the main focus after the potassium improved shortly after admission. The patient came into the ER with vomiting and diarrhea, and unable to tolerate any oral meds including antibiotics and required IV access. There were multiple conditions considered upon inpatient admission including hypokalemia, dehydration due to low p.o. intake with suspicion of underlying infection. The physician ultimately diagnosed neutropenic sepsis, and clinical indicators do support that diagnosis (WBC 0.4, Neutropenia, Platelets 52 cells X 10^3/uL -LOW; underlying infection of UTI, immunocompromised state from breast cancer) and patient was aggressively treated with IV antibiotics. The patient was unable to fight the infection due to low neutrophils and thus developed neutropenic sepsis. This appeared to be the more acute condition for which the admission was focused upon. She did receive IV meds for hypokalemia, however under normal circumstances, potassium would be treated using oral medications if not for the sepsis and inability to tolerate p.o. meds. Potassium was 2.6 on admission and improved shortly after admission. So given the fact that multiple conditions were responsible for admission, I followed OCG section II guidelines for PDX selection”
Medical Decision Making: This is a 75-year-old female with a history of anxiety, hypertension, atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation, and recent diagnosis of breast cancer for which she was started on chemotherapy 5 days ago presenting to the ED with a complaint of vomiting and diarrhea over the past 24 hours.
Presumed diagnosis includes adverse effect of her chemo treatment that was recently started, occult infection, viral gastroenteritis
This establish IV access, obtain appropriate diagnostic labs, EKG, chest x-ray, labs and UA. Normal saline 1 L fluid bolus.
Addendum 1 5:50 PM in ED: I reviewed patient work-up in ED today she is found to be significantly neutropenic with a white blood cell count of 0.4. Chest x-ray shows no focality in keeping with pneumonia. However she is found to have a significant urinary tract infections forwhich she will be aggressively starting IV antibiotics at this time. Her metabolic derangements include a potassium of 2.6. Serum at Ca is 7.9. Thick acid is unremarkable. Her pH on her blood gases 7.49 with a PCO2 of 34. Her troponin is negligible. Flu testing is negative.
This patient will be admitted to the hospital given her inability to tolerate orals, dehydration, neutropenic, hypokalemic and a urinary tract infection inability to tolerate antibiotics orally.
Impression and Plan:
Diagnosis: Urinary tract infection,
Disposition: Admit: Time to Medical Unit.
History and Physical: Additional Info/ Background/history of present illness:
75-year-old female with past medical history of Anxiety , Atrial fibrillation , Breast cancer , Goiter, nodular , Hemangioma of liver , High blood pressure , Mild sleep apnea –
Recently diagnosed with recurrent breast cancer/metastasis and started on a new chemotherapy
Routine, comes in with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea with evidence of neutropenic sepsis.
Major medical issues at this time include the following:
- Neutropenic sepsis
- Metastatic breast cancer, status post chemotherapy
- Acute on chronic malnutrition
- Severe dehydration with hypokalemia
- Coagulopathy secondary to Pradaxa use
- Atrial fibrillation rapid ventricular response
Patient will be treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics as per the neutropenic sepsis pathway.
Options include IV cefepime versus IV Zosyn -likely source of her infection is urinary
Given her severe neutropenia with (ANC less than 200) -is at risk for fulminant sepsis.
Also she should get hematology/oncology consultation for Neulasta/Neupogen infusion
Sepsis secondary to UTI in neutropenic patient: Tachycardic and leukopenic on presentation meeting sepsis criteria. She remains afebrile and asymptomatic
-Urine culture growing pansensitive e coli
-Status post ceftriaxone x1, continue cefepime
-Blood culture neg at 50 h
Patient was made DNR, refusing more chemotherapy and discharged to hospice.
AHA and Official advice reviewed:
Neutropenic sepsis Coding Clinic, Second Quarter 1996 Page: 6
Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting Section II PDX selection, multiple conditions:
“The circumstances of inpatient admission always govern the selection of principal diagnosis. The principal diagnosis is defined in the Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) as “that condition established after study to be chiefly responsible for occasioning the admission of the patient to the hospital for care.”
“C. Two or more diagnoses that equally meet the definition for principal diagnosis
In the unusual instance when two or more diagnoses equally meet the criteria for principal diagnosis as determined by the circumstances of admission, diagnostic workup and/or therapy provided, and the Alphabetic Index, Tabular List, or another coding guidelines does not provide sequencing direction, any one of the diagnoses may be sequenced first.”
As you can see above, the coder has provided the reasoning and documentation for their choice of principal diagnosis. This fully explains the coder’s position.
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.
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.
Why are so many AKI records being denied? It’s hard to give one answer for why so many AKI records are being denied lately, but most appear to be due to the multiple sets of criteria available for use in determining if a patient has AKI, as well as physician documentation. As stated in Part 3 of this series, there are three main criteria/classifications used to diagnose AKI.
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.
Effective March 1, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as in-person visits for all diagnoses, not just services related to COVID-19. This great for providers whose patients are reluctant to visit the office.
The biggest reasons why some hospital systems are moving to single path coding is to eliminate duplicative processes and to optimize productivity. In addition, costs are reduced when only one coder “touches” the record and completes both types of coding.