Part 4: Sepsis Series | Are Clinical Indicators Present to Support the Diagnosis of Sepsis?
Kim Carrier RHIT, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P
Director of Coding Quality Assurance
AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer
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.
What are the most common clinical indicators for sepsis and septic shock?
WBC less than 4,000 or greater than 12,000
All indicators included under sepsis to the left of this column plus…
Fever > 100.4F (38C) or hypothermia < 96.8F (36C) | shaking, chills
|Diagnosis of sepsis|
Tachycardia (heart rate > 90 BPM)
Significant drop in BP that does not respond to fluid replacement
Tachypnea (respiratory rate > 20 breaths per minute
Acute organ dysfunction/failure
Mental status changes, confusion
Severe respiratory problems
Abnormal heart pumping function
Positive blood culture
Cold, clammy and pale or mottled skin
The table above only represents some of the clinical indicators that may be present but is not an all-inclusive list.
One of the most challenging areas that coders face today is knowing when a query is necessary. Coders see diagnoses that are documented by the physician in the medical record, and they want to be able to report the code for the diagnosis. However coders know they must clinically validate diagnoses and if they are not able to, query or get CDI or a physician liaison involved.
There is an OCG stating: “The assignment of a diagnosis code is based on the provider’s diagnostic statement that the condition exists. The provider’s statement that the patient has a particular condition is sufficient. Code assignment is not based on clinical criteria used by the provider to establish the diagnosis.”
Does this mean coders may report any condition documented within a medical record?
No, of course not. All coders have seen copy/paste in medical records and problem lists that are brought in from previous admissions. When reporting a diagnosis, the condition must meet the reporting guidelines either for selection of PDX or as an additional SDX. The statement in the OCG above doesn’t mean that there doesn’t have to be clinical indicators for a disease present at all, only that the physician is not limited to a specific set of clinical criteria he can use to make a diagnosis. There are many “established” criteria for many diseases and sepsis is no different. At this time, there are three sepsis criteria that different physicians and facilities follow and will most likely change again going forward.
What makes this so hard for coders is that it is difficult to question a physician’s documentation. When conflicting documentation within the record is present, that is much easier because coders are just asking for clarification. If a coder asks a physician “does this patient really have sepsis?”, this could be a bad situation with a very negative outcome on the query. It is better to ask the physician what criteria were used to make the diagnosis of sepsis or involve CDI or a physician liaison for help with these. Physician education is needed, and if coders don’t query, then the facilities and physicians will not know that there is a documentation issue.
In the following examples, we’ll look at some scenarios that could potentially require a query to substantiate the diagnosis of sepsis and possibly help prevent denials. We all see denial after denial on sepsis cases, and it is best to get this diagnosis clarified at the time of coding, or while the patient is still in the hospital by CDI.
- Patient presents with low grade fever of 99F and pressure in the pelvic area. Per the admitting physician, the patient is admitted to rule out sepsis and UTI. The patient’s urine culture was positive for UTI and blood cultures were negative for any bacteria. The patient was treated with IV antibiotics for two days and then discharged home to continue five more days. The final diagnosis for the patient are: 1. Sepsis with UTI. Most times, as auditors, we see this coded as A41.9 (Sepsis, unspecified organism) as the PDX followed by N39.0 (Urinary tract infection, unspecified site) as a SDX code without a query to the physician. The rebuttal that we get most often from coders, is that they coded based on the physician’s documentation of the diagnosis. And that is true. However, there was nothing clinically in the record to support the diagnosis of sepsis. The low grade fever and pain were symptoms of the localized infection in the urinary tract. If this record falls into any third party review, a denial of payment and reimbursement may be impacted.
- Patient presents with pneumonia and dehydration with possible AKI (acute kidney injury). In the problem list, sepsis is documented on both the H&P and the DS. The patient is started on IV fluids and IV antibiotics and remained in the hospital for five days. There is a fever noted on admission of 100F and elevated WBC. However in the body of the DS, the WBC’s are linked to steroid use by the patient for their rheumatoid arthritis. The final diagnosis is 1. Pneumonia; 2. AKI secondary to dehydration; 3. History of rheumatoid arthritis on chronic low dose prednisone. Would you code sepsis? Some coders do code sepsis from the problem list without getting the condition clarified by the physician. There’s nothing really to support that the condition was present on this admission. The problem list is typically copy/pasted in some hospital systems and diagnoses on these should really be investigated to determine if they are present on this particular admission or not. The patient does have a fever, elevated WBC and AKI. Can these conditions be used as criteria to support sepsis? No, only the fever could be attributed to that diagnosis. The elevated WBC is due to steroid use and the AKI is due to dehydration so it is not linked to sepsis. In this case, J18.9 (Pneumonia, unspecified organism) would be reported as the PDX. N17.9 (Acute kidney failure, unspecified), E86.0 (Dehydration), D72.828 (Other elevated white blood cell count), T38.0X5A (Adverse effect of glucocorticoids and synthetic analogues, initial encounter), M06.9 (Rheumatoid arthritis), and Z79.52 (Long term (current) use of systemic steroids) would all be reported as additional SDX codes. Since the diagnosis of sepsis was only in the problem list and not listed as one of the diagnoses, a query isn’t really needed to clarify that this was ruled out, as it appears not to be current on this admission. There are no clinical indicators presents other than fever that could be used in the query for the physician. If this were coded as sepsis, or even queried and then coded as sepsis, it would almost certainly be denied in a third party review due to lacking clinical support of the diagnosis.
These examples may seem extreme, but this is what coders see very often. One very important statement to remember is that coders should not be ignoring physician documentation of a specific diagnosis based on clinical criteria, or abnormal test results, etc. If it’s documented it should be coded or a query to clarify should be sent to the physician. In Part 5 (and final) of the series, we will look at some of the common reasons given in sepsis denials as well as what coders can do to prevent them.
ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2020
Coding Clinic, Fourth Quarter 2016: Page 147
Coding Clinic, Third Quarter 2016: Page 8
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 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).
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.
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.
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.