Coding Tip: Inpatient Coding of Probable Diagnoses
This Coding Tip was updated on 12/4/2018
Kim Carrier RHIT, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P
Director of Coding Quality Assurance
AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer
The rules about coding probable, possible and questionable diagnoses did not change with the implementation of ICD-10-CM.
A possible, probable, suspected, likely, questionable, or still to be ruled out condition can be coded if still documented as such at the time of discharge. Other similar terms used to describe possible conditions could include consistent with, compatible with, indicative of, suggestive of, and comparable with.
All the terms used above (and there could be others that would fit the definition) are terms used to describe conditions that the patient may have and that the patient is being treated or monitored for.
Per the OCG, coders can code these conditions as if they were confirmed as long as they are still documented as such at the time of discharge. Here are a couple of examples of this:
- Patient is admitted with SOB and has COPD. On admission, the patient is thought to have possible pneumonia. The patient is begun on IV antibiotics and responds to treatment. The patient is discharged with the diagnosis of COPD with acute exacerbation/acute bronchitis. There is no mention of pneumonia at the time of discharge or in the DS. In this case, the coder would need to query the MD to clarify if the possible diagnosis of pneumonia was ruled out. It may be that there is documentation in the record to elude to this and no query needed but if unclear it should be queried. The diagnosis of pneumonia would not be able to be reported unless the MD was queried and clarification of the diagnosis was given.
- Same patient as above BUT the DS does list the diagnosis of possible pneumonia as a final diagnosis. In this case, pneumonia is appropriate as a reportable diagnosis. It is a probable condition that is still being documented at discharge.
There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Here are some of the exceptions:
- Only confirmed cases of HIV/AIDS may be reported. If the diagnosis is listed with any of the terms used above and not confirmed, the disease should not be reported.
- Avian influenza, novel influenza, or other identified influenza should not be coded when they are documented as possible/probable or other terms. Only confirmed cases of Avian, novel and other identified influenza should be coded as such.
- Only confirmed cases of Zika virus can be coded.
- If there is a code for a suspected condition and the condition is listed as such, then this code would be reported instead of the code for the condition. An example would be for suspected adult and child abuse, neglect and other maltreatment. There are specific codes to report if this is suspected abuse.
Comparative/contrasting secondary diagnoses
These should be coded as if they were established in ICD-10-CM. The OCG for uncertain diagnoses should be followed. This was not the case in ICD-9 when instead of coding each of the comparative/contrasting SDX, the symptom was coded instead. Here are a couple of examples of this:
- Patient is admitted with pneumonia and during the admission complains of abdominal pain. Workup is done without confirmation of the cause of this pain. The physician documents in the record, at the time of discharge, abdominal pain was worked up with no clear cause. This was thought to be mild acute pancreatitis vs. alcoholic gastritis. In this case, both acute pancreatitis and alcoholic gastritis would be reported. No code would be reported for the symptom of abdominal pain.
- Patient is admitted with sepsis with no definitive cause. At the time of discharge, the MD documented that the sepsis was thought to be due to possible pneumonia vs. severe acute bronchitis. In this case, both pneumonia and acute bronchitis would be reported.
Comparative/contrasting principal diagnoses
This rule did not change with implementation of ICD-10-CM. If two or more contrasting/comparative diagnoses are documented at the time of discharge (and are considered as PDX) they are coded as if they were confirmed diagnoses. Sequencing would depend on the circumstances of admission. If treatment was considered equal, then either may be sequenced as the PDX.
Probable or possible malignancy
This may be the most difficult diagnosis that coders face. It is very difficult to assign a diagnosis of malignancy/cancer to a patient when this is only documented as a possible/probable or suspected condition. However, there is official coding advice that directs the coder to do just this. Even though most don’t like to do this it is what must be done. Here are a couple of examples (one PDX and one SDX):
- Patient was admitted with flank pain and workup was begun. The patient had CT scan that did show a mass in the left kidney. The patient wanted further workup as an outpatient. At the time of discharge, the physician documented the final diagnosis as kidney mass, most likely renal cell carcinoma. Workup was planned as an outpatient. In this case, the PDX should be reported as renal cell carcinoma.
- Patient was admitted with pneumonia. They had a history of lung malignancy that had been removed years ago. On this admission, patient had CT of the lung. This showed multiple lung nodules suspicious for metastasis. During the admission, the patient also complained of headache so a CT of the head was also performed. This showed multiple areas in the brain that were suspicious for metastasis. The patient refused further workup of these sites at this time. At the time of discharge, the physician documented the final diagnoses as pneumonia, history of lung cancer with possible metastasis to the lung and brain. Further workup will be discussed on follow up visit. In this case, both the lung metastasis and the brain metastasis would be reported as secondary diagnoses.
A diagnosis that is documented as “borderline” at the time of discharge is coded as a confirmed diagnosis, unless there is a specific index entry in ICD-10-CM for a borderline condition. Here are a couple of examples:
- If at the time of discharge there is a diagnosis of borderline diabetes, this is not coded as diabetes as there is a specific index entry for borderline diabetes.
- If at the time of discharge there is a diagnosis of borderline hypercholesterolemia, this would be coded as hypercholesterolemia since there is not a specific index entry for borderline hypercholesterolemia.
These are NOT the same as a possible/suspected condition or uncertain diagnosis. If it occurred, code it. If the impending or threatened condition did not occur during the admission then the coder would need to reference the Alphabetic Index to see if there is a subentry term for “impending” or “threatened” for the condition and also reference the main term entries for “impending” or “threatened”. If they are listed, then assign the code that is given. If not, then the diagnosis that is listed as impending/threatened would NOT be reported.
Concern for/concerning for
AHA Coding Clinic First Quarter 2018 confirms that the term “concern for” should be interpreted as an uncertain diagnosis and coded using the guidelines for “uncertain diagnoses” in the inpatient setting. Please disregard previous publications/emails regarding the coding of “concern for” as it has been best practice to NOT code these in the past.
ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY2019
Pages: 16, 18, 29, 53, 54, 83, 108, and 111
ICD-9-CM Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 2005 Page: 21
ICD-9-CM Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2006 Page: 4-5
ICD-9-CM Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2011 Page: 10
ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic, Second Quarter 2016 Page: 9
ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic, First Quarter 2018 Page 18-19
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 2020 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 2020 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY 2020 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There is 3 new digestive system codes with 1 deletion and 2 revised; 1 revised urinary system codes with new category III codes; 6 new with 20 deleted nervous system codes with 3 revisions; 2 new eye codes with 3 revisions; and finally a new category III auditory code.
This is Part 3 of a five part series on the new 2020 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2019 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There are 11 new cardiovascular CPT codes added with 8 deletions and 2 revisions.
This is Part 2 of a five part series on the new 2020 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2020 and include some examples to help the coder understand the new codes. There are 11 new musculoskeletal CPT codes added with 1 deletion and 0 revisions.
This is Part 1 of a five part series on the new 2020 CPT codes. In this series we will explore the CPT changes for FY2020 and include examples to help the coder understand the new codes. For 2020 in general, there were 248 new CPT codes added, 71 deleted and 75 revised.
This is Part 6 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of breast procedures. There are many different types of breast reconstruction procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. Part 6 focuses on revision of a reconstructed breast.
This is Part 5 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of breast procedures. There are many different types of breast procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. This series will address several of the more confusing topics. Part 5 focuses on the coding of different types of autologous tissue breast reconstruction procedures.
Part 4: CPT Breast Education Series | Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix with Breast Implant Reconstruction
This is Part 4 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of reconstructive procedures following mastectomy. There are many different types of breast reconstruction procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. Part 4 focuses on the use of acellular dermal matrix with breast implant reconstruction.
Part 3: CPT Breast Education Series | Immediate Versus Delayed Permanent Breast Implant Reconstruction
This is Part 3 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of breast procedures. There are many different types of breast procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. This series will address several of the more confusing topics. Part 3 focuses on the difference between immediate and delayed permanent breast implant reconstruction.
This is Part 2 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of breast procedures. There are many different types of breast reconstruction procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. This series will address several of the more confusing topics. Part 2 focuses on the use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction.
With the implementation of ICD-10-PCS the description of codes became much more detailed to describe exactly what is being performed. Cardiac catheterization is one of the descriptions that changed to further detail exactly what is being performed during the procedure.
This is Part 1 of a 6-part series focusing on CPT coding of reconstructive procedures following mastectomy. There are many different types of breast reconstruction procedures, each having potential stumbling-blocks for coders. Part 1 is an overview of the types of breast reconstruction techniques commonly used. Future topics in this series will go into more detail of each technique and the CPT coding implications.
With Christmas fast-approaching, we’re making a list of our favorite holiday movies and checking it twice. And in the spirit of good humor and cheer, we’ve added some ICD-10 codes to these holiday classics. Have a safe, happy, and healthy holiday everyone!
“Lobar” pneumonia references a form of pneumonia that affects a specific lobe or lobes of the lung. This is a bacterial pneumonia and is most commonly community acquired. Antibiotics are almost always necessary to clear this type of pneumonia.
Why are so many sepsis records denied? It’s hard to say why there seem to be so many sepsis denials of late, but most likely this is due to the multiple sets of criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis, change in definition of sepsis, as well as physician documentation.
In Parts 1, 2 and 3 we learned about what sepsis is, sequencing of sepsis and what documentation is needed to report severe sepsis. In Part 4, we will look at clinical indicators needed to clinically support the diagnosis of sepsis and determine if a query is indicated.
Severe sepsis occurs when sepsis progresses and signs of organ dysfunction/failure develop. One site stated that approximately 30% of patients with severe sepsis do not survive. Patients may develop one organ dysfunction/failure, multi-system organ failure and/or septic shock.
In Part 2 of our Sepsis Series, we are going to focus on sequencing of sepsis when the diagnosis is clearly documented. Later in the series we will look at what to do when the diagnosis is not clearly documented.
In this series, we will learn what sepsis is or causes of sepsis, how to sequence the diagnosis in ICD-10-CM, what are the clinical indicators for sepsis, is a query necessary before reporting the diagnosis of sepsis, and how to prevent denials on sepsis records.
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 FY2020 IPPS changes. In this last Part 4 of the series, we will review the NTAP procedure codes and reimbursement add-on payments for FY2020.
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 FY2020. On August 2, 2019, CMS published the Final Rule for IPPS (CMS-1716) FY2020 IPPS Final Rule.
In Part 1 of this 4 part series we discussed some of the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis changes. In Part 2 we present the significant ICD-10-PCS procedure code changes. There are 72,184 total ICD-10-CM codes for FY2020.
This is Part 1 of a 4 part series on the FY2020 changes to ICD-10 and the IPPS. In this part, we discuss some of the new ICD-10-CM diagnosis changes. There are 72,184 total ICD-10-CM codes for FY2020.
In Part 12, we focused on intra-operative peripheral neuro monitoring used during spinal fusion surgery. In Part 13, we are going to focus on harvesting of autograft and is it coded. Remember in Part 6, we learned that autograft is bone from the patient.
In Part 11, we focused on identifying the computer assisted navigation used during spinal fusion surgery. In Part 12, we are going to focus on intra-operative peripheral neuro monitoring.
In Part 10, we focused on identifying whether or not hardware from a previous spinal fusion is coded. In Part 11, we are going to discuss computer assisted navigation.
In Part 9, we focused on identifying if decompression was also performed and if so, on which body part. In Part 10, we are going to focus on identifying if hardware was removed from a previous fusion site.
In Part 8, we focused on identifying if a discectomy was performed, and if so, if it was a partial or a total discectomy. In Part 9, we are going to focus on identifying if a decompression was performed, and if so, was it of the spinal cord, spinal nerves or both?
In Part 7, we focused on identifying any instrumentation that may be used during a spinal fusion. In Part 8, we are going to focus on identifying if a discectomy is performed and if this is an excision or a resection of the disc.