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.
In 2019, we reviewed over 50,000 diagnosis codes from many different specialties for our Professional Fee clients. For the final part of this 3-part series, we will look at R00-R99 – Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified.
The Circulatory chapter is one that is identified every year as having a large number of coding changes. Many of these changes are related to documentation providing more specificity and, in some cases, less specificity than the codes reported. Below we will discuss some of the areas of opportunity in this chapter.
In 2019, we reviewed over 50,000 diagnosis codes from many different specialties for our Professional Fee clients. Here are the top three ICD-10-CM chapters where HIA identified coding opportunities: Z00-Z99 – Factors influencing health status and contact with health services; I00-I99 – Circulatory system and; R00-R99 – Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified.
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.
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.
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.
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.