Part 4: Is Documentation Present to Report 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 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.
Is the diagnosis clearly documented without conflict?
As coders, we know the importance of having complete and accurate documentation in a patient’s health record. Without having this, there’s no way that accurate coding can take place. If there is question of a diagnosis being present in the record or even conflicted by another physician, a query is needed to clarify. While reviewing the health record, coders should look for the following (non all inclusive):
- Clear documentation of the diagnosis of AKI
- Conflicting documentation such as acute kidney/renal insufficiency
- Lack of improvement in labs
- Labs that don’t show any evidence of AKI such as within normal limits of BUN and creatinine
- Documentation of chronic kidney disease (CKD) along with a diagnosis of AKI without improvement to baseline (could be natural progression of CKD)
- Treatment directed toward the diagnosis of AKI, monitoring, therapeutic treatment, diagnostic procedures or extended length of stay
- Is urine output being monitored?
- Did the lab values improve to normal or baseline within just a few hours?
Are there clinical indicators to support the diagnosis?
It is very tough for coders to determine how to report a diagnosis documented by a physician when there is little to no clinical indicators for the condition present. Clinical documentation improvement (CDI) specialist can help reduce the amount of question on a diagnosis, by helping the physician bring forward the criteria that is being used to make the stated diagnosis.
Coders wear many different hats these days. In the past, the coders role was to report a proper code for documented diagnoses by the physician. It’s a balancing act that coders go through with every record they code. Coders are oftentimes responsible to evaluate the clinical indicators that are present for a documented diagnosis, and if there aren’t sufficient indicators, query the physician. This is on top of determining if each diagnosis meets the reporting requirements such as monitoring, evaluation, treatment, or extended length of stay. CDI specialists, facilities, and coders need to help physician’s understand the need to link the clinical indicators in the record (such as laboratory findings), to the specific diagnosis being made when this specific clinical finding is evaluated. There should be transparency in the physician’s diagnosis and the link of clinical support for the same.
There is also no gold standard for diagnosis of AKI/ATN. Certain payers will use a specific set of criteria to support the coding of AKI and this typically differs from the criteria being used by the treating physician.
What is a clinical validity audit?
A clinical validity audit is to determine if documented diagnoses in a patient’s record are substantiated by clinical criteria. Those performing these audits will typically look for cases where the diagnosis is documented by the physician and a proper code assignment was reported, but the clinical picture of the patient does not support the diagnosis. Most often, clinical validation records that fall into audit denials are coded correctly according to coding rules and regulations. The denials are for insufficient clinical support in the record.
Is a query needed to clarify the documentation or clinical validity of the diagnosis?
We’ve all had the experience of the query that didn’t go over so well with a physician. As coders, we typically only query for clinical validity as a last resort, when the clinical indicators are lacking. When a patient is first admitted, the myriad of symptoms that the patient presents with could be for many different diagnoses that may only become evident during workup of the presenting symptoms. What is initially thought of and documented, may be ruled out during the workup and just not clearly documented as such. With that in mind, coders cannot ignore physician documentation even with the lack of clinical indicators being present. The documented diagnosis must be coded and/or clarified with a physician query if there is either conflicting or vague documentation, or if there is a lack of clinical indicators present to support that the condition exist. Coders and/or CDI should not be making the determination that a physician’s documented diagnosis does not exist based on the lack of clinical indicators. Physicians should be documenting what and why the patient has a specific diagnosis linking the clinical indicators to the condition documented and being treated.
Transparency in the physician’s documentation will help eliminate the need to query, help with errors in reporting accurate ICD-10-CM codes, as well as help with appeals for any denials that may occur.
Look for the final part of this series, Part 5, soon. In this, we will discuss common reasons given for denials and how coders can help prevent the clinical validation denials.
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 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.
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.
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 the final part of a three part series in which we address how coders can better interact with Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) professionals. In this part, we provide an actual example of an effective communication response to CDI.
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.