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.
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).
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.
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.
Effective with 4/1/2020 discharges, ICD-10-CM code U07.0 is used to report vaping -related disorders. ICD-10-CM code U07.0 (vaping related disorder) should be used when documentation supports that the patient has a lung-related disorder from vaping. This code is found in the new ICD-10-CM Chapter 22. U07.0 will be in listed in the ICD-10-CM manual under a new section: Provisional assignment of new disease of uncertain etiology or emergency use.
The US government and public-health officials are urging consumers to utilize telemedicine for remote treatment, fill prescriptions and get medical attention during the new coronavirus pandemic. The goal is to keep people with symptoms at home and to practice social distancing if their condition doesn’t warrant more intensive hospital care.
Coronavirus: Tips for working from home. Companies around the world have told their employees to stay home and work remotely. Whether you’re a new to this concept or a work from home veteran, here’s some tips to staying productive from our #HIAfamily.
This is part two of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) professionals. In this part, we discuss mismatches and how to best go about resolving them. In part three we will provide a case example of best practice interaction.
This is part one of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) professionals. Many times these departments are separate and the remote environment makes it difficult to interact efficiently between the two departments. In part one, we will discuss the history and objectives of CDI so the coder has a better understanding of CDI’s role.
One reason that coders should report chronic conditions (including history and status codes) on outpatient records is the HCC’s—Hierarchical Condition Categories. The quick and easy explanation of what HCC’s are is each HCC is mapped to certain ICD-10-CM codes or code ranges. HCC coding is designed to estimate future health care costs for patients.
For Part 5 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 4 within ICD-10-CM—E00-E89—Endocrine, Nutritional, and Metabolic Diseases. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 4 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 10 within ICD-10-CM—J00-J99—Diseases of the Respiratory System. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 3 of this 5 part series, we will look at Chapter 9 within ICD-10-CM—I00-I99—Diseases of the Circulatory System. This chapter contains so many of the everyday diagnoses that we code such as hypertension, heart disease and stroke.
For Part 2 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 1 within ICD-10-CM—A00-B99—Certain Infectious and Parasitic Diseases. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but here are some of the most common issues.
For Part 1 of this 5-part series, we will look at Chapter 21 within ICD-10-CM—Z00-Z99—Factors influencing health status and contact with health services. There is no possible way to include every guideline or coding reference for this chapter, but I’ll do my best to touch on some off the most common issues.
The HIM world has been buzzing recently with discussion of “Social Determinants of Health” and coded data. What does this mean for coders and the HIM field?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is in process of developing a new code for the COVID-19 (coronavirus) that will be released October 1, 2020. In the meantime, the CDC has provided advice on coding the COVID-19 coronavirus.
We’re finally at the #1 most common DRG with recommendations by HIA for 2019. Just to recap, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records in 2019. Most have probably already guessed what the correct DRG would be with the most recommendations. There are just some diagnoses and DRG’s that will always be a thorn in the side for coders. #1 DRG with the most recommendations during HIA reviews : DRG 871—Septicemia or severe sepsis w/o mechanical ventilation >96 hours with MCC
We’re now at the second most common DRG with recommendations by HIA for 2019. Just to recap, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records in 2019. We are counting down to # 1. #2 DRG with the most recommendations during HIA reviews: DRG 872—Septicemia or severe sepsis w/o mechanical ventilation >96 hours w/o MCC.
In 2019, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records. Wow! That is a lot of records. Even with this large number of records, the DRG’s with recommendations are still the ones that coders typically see during audits. #3 DRG 190—Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with MCC.
In 2019, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records. Wow! That is a lot of records. Even with this large number of records, the DRG’s with recommendations are still the ones that coders typically see during audits. #4 is DRG 193—Simple pneumonia & pleurisy with MCC.
In 2019, HIA reviewed over 50,000 inpatient records. Wow! That is a lot of records. Even with this large number of records, the DRG’s with recommendations are still the ones that coders typically see during audits. #5 DRG with the most recommendations during HIA reviews : DRG 853—Infectious & Parasitic diseases with O.R. procedure with MCC