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.
We have finished with the step-by-step coding tidbits on coding of spinal fusions. If you were not able to catch Parts 1-13 of this series focused on spinal fusions, please visit hiacode.com/topics/series/spinal-fusion-coding/.
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.
In Part 6, we focused on identifying the type of bone graft product used for the spinal fusion. In Part 7, we are going to focus on identifying any instrumentation or device used.
In Part 5, we focused on identifying the approach being used for the spinal fusion. In Part 6, we are going to focus on identifying the type of bone graft used for the spinal fusion.
In Part 4, we focused on determining the spinal column being fused. In Part 5, we are going to focus on identifying what approach is being used to complete the spinal fusion (anterior, posterior or both).
This past year, HIA implemented “Buddy Up,” a program designed to help the new hire have a smooth transition into their new HIA roles with the assistance of a “buddy.” What is a Buddy? The Buddy is simply a peer who can guide the new hire in order to make them feel more comfortable. We are very proud of this program and have many success stories that we would like to share. Take a look at the wonderful feedback we have received below.
In Part 3, we focused on determining the level of the fusion(s) and how to determine the number of vertebrae fused. In Part 4, we are going to focus on identifying which column is being fused (anterior, posterior or both).
Part 3: Spinal Fusion Coding — Determine the Level(s) or Region of Fusion and Number of Vertebrae Fused
In Part 1, we learned the diagnoses associated with the need for spinal fusions, and in Part 2 the need to identify if the fusion is an initial or refusion of the vertebrae. In Part 3, we are going to focus on determining the level(s) of fusion, as well as the number of vertebrae fused.
In Part 2, we are going to look at the differences between initial fusion and a refusion. In ICD-9, there were specific codes to show if the fusion was an initial fusion, or if it was a refusion. In ICD-10-PCS, initial fusions and refusion procedures are coded to the same root operation “fusion.”
This is Part 1 of a 14 part series focusing on education for spinal fusions. Spinal fusion coding is a tough job for coders. There are so many diseases/disorders that result in the need for spinal fusion, and even more choices in reporting the ICD-10-PCS codes.
The official definition from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) states that a Medicare overpayment is a payment that exceeds amounts properly payable under Medicare statutes and regulations. When Medicare identifies an overpayment, the amount becomes a debt you owe the Federal government.
The question asked in a physician query may be the most important element of the document. Query questions need to be as simple and concise as possible. The physician should have no doubt what the coder is asking.
Coding complications of transplanted organs has always been a coding dilemma. With the implementation of ICD-10-CM that didn’t change. However, coders have multiple directives to help in determining what a complication of the transplant is vs. non-transplant conditions and diseases.
We interviewed our most productive coders, reviewers and members of our education team, asking them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Beth Martilik, MA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, Assistant Director of Education, about the steps she takes to find her routine.
With the implementation of ICD-10-CM came more codes for reporting many different conditions and diseases, and atrial fibrillation is one of those. For many years there was only one code available for reporting this condition, even when the physician further specified the type of atrial fibrillation that the patient had. In ICD-10-CM, there are four codes to report atrial fibrillation.
We have a case where the physician removes mucoid casts found during bronchoscopy. We have also seen mucus plugs removed during bronchoscopy. The MD performs bronchial washings then removes a large amount of tenacious and thick mucoid casts via bronchoscopy. Is this coded drainage, extirpation or excision? What body part is used?
The key to making the query process more efficient is to look for words or documentation while reviewing the record that may signal a potential query opportunity and to note the finding at that time. By the time a coder reaches the end of a record, documentation may have been found to eliminate the need for the query.
Question: This patient is noted to have “Lymphangitic carcinomatosis of lungs with mediastinal lymph nodes.” How would I code the diagnosis? Would I code metastatic cancer to the lung (C78.01) or metastatic cancer to the lymph nodes (C77.1)?
This would be considered a “mechanical” complication of the stent graft since the MD states it is a fracture of the endograft and it is folded over on itself. I would change T82.898A TO T82.598A for Other mechanical complication of other cardiac and vascular devices and implants, initial encounter. I did not use “displacement” because the surgeon did not state that the graft was displaced, only that it collapsed upon itself causing obstruction.
We interviewed our most productive coders and reviewers, asking them what steps they take to find a rhythm that works for them. This week, we talked with Valerie Abney, CDIP, RHIT, CCS, about the steps she takes to find her routine.
Osteoporosis alone is responsible for over a million fractures every year. Stress fractures are not as common but they do occur. There are more than 1 million total joint replacements in the U.S. each year, so there was a need to create codes for injuries that occur around or near the prosthesis. These are called “periprosthetic” fractures.
Back in April, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a report detailing its findings from a review of two groups of high-risk diagnosis codes, acute stroke and major depressive disorder. The objective was to determine whether selected diagnosis codes submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for use in CMS’s risk adjustment program complied with Federal requirements.
There seems to be differences of opinions on the issue of a 40w0day gestation Can you clarify if P08.21 should be assigned for 40w0day infant or if it would not be assigned unless the infant’s gestation age was 40w1day or greater?
Coders may find situations where a patient is documented as meeting SIRS or sepsis criteria, or has some clinical indicators reflective of possible sepsis, but the physician never documents sepsis as a diagnosis. Should the coder always query for sepsis in these instances?