A policy and procedure that should be developed to ensure compliant practice for CDIPs who are altering health records is professional ethical standards. Professional ethical standards are the principles and values that guide the conduct and decision-making of CDIPs in their role of ensuring the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of clinical documentation and coded data. According to the AHIMA Standards of Ethical Coding1 and the ACDIS Code of Ethics2, CDIPs should not alter health records without the consent or direction of the provider, as this may compromise the quality and validity of the documentation and coding, and may violate legal and regulatory requirements. CDIPs should also respect the confidentiality and security of health records, and report any unethical or fraudulent practices to the appropriate authority.

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• AHIMA Standards of Ethical Coding1
• ACDIS Code of Ethics2

According to the AHIMA/ACDIS Query Practice Brief, one of the fundamental elements that must be in place for a successful DRG discrepancy resolution is a collaborative and respectful interaction between the coder and the CDIP1. The coder and the CDIP should communicate effectively and timely to identify and resolve any DRG mismatches, using evidence-based guidelines, coding conventions, and query standards1. The coder and the CDIP should also share their knowledge and expertise with each other, and seek clarification from the provider or the physician advisor/champion when necessary1. The other options are not considered fundamental elements for DRG discrepancy resolution, although they may be helpful or supportive in some situations. References:

• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA

According to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, when the affected side is not documented for a condition that is commonly associated with hemiplegia or hemiparesis, such as a cerebral vascular accident, the default code is the non-dominant side. The non-dominant side is usually the left side for right-handed individuals and the right side for left-handed individuals. However, if the patient is ambidextrous, the default code is still the non-dominant side, unless the provider indicates otherwise. Therefore, in this case, the default code for cerebral vascular accident with left sided weakness is I63.532 Cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion or stenosis of left middle cerebral artery1.

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• ICD-10 Code for Cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion or stenosis of left middle cerebral artery- I63.532- AAPC Coder1
• ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2022

The factor that should be examined when developing documentation integrity projects is CC and MCC capture rates. CC stands for complication or comorbidity, and MCC stands for major complication or comorbidity. These are secondary diagnoses that affect the severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM) of the patient, as well as the reimbursement and quality measures of the hospital. CC and MCC capture rates measure how well the clinical documentation reflects the presence and impact of these conditions on the patient’s care. Examining CC and MCC capture rates can help to identify documentation improvement opportunities, goals, strategies, and outcomes4 References: 1: https://www.ahima.org/media/owmhxbv1/cdip_contentoutline_2023_final.pdf  4: https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077

The member of the clinical documentation integrity (CDI) team who can help provide peer-to-peer level of education on the importance of accurate documentation and query responses is the physician advisor/champion. The physician advisor/champion is a physician who supports and advocates for the CDI program and its goals, and who can communicate effectively with other physicians about the clinical and financial implications of documentation quality and accuracy. The physician advisor/champion can also serve as a liaison between the CDI team and the medical staff, and help to resolve any issues or conflicts that may arise from the query process. The physician advisor/champion can also provide feedback and guidance to the CDI team on clinical matters and documentation standards. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline1
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide2

According to the AHIMA/ACDIS Query Practice Brief, one of the best practices for a compliant query process is to provide ongoing education to physicians on the importance of documentation integrity, the query process, and the impact of documentation on quality measures, reimbursement, and compliance1. Education can help physicians understand the rationale and expectations for responding to queries, as well as the benefits of accurate and complete documentation for patient care and data quality. Education can also address any barriers or challenges that physicians may face in responding to queries, such as time constraints, technology issues, or workflow preferences1. References:

• AHIMA/ACDIS Query Practice Brief – Updated 12/2022
• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA

According to the AHIMA CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, a query is a communication tool or process used to clarify documentation in the health record for documentation integrity and accurate code assignment1. A query should be clear, concise, and consistent, and should include relevant clinical indicators that support the query1. A query should also provide multiple choice answer options that are supported by clinical indicators and include a non-leading query statement2. In this case, the patient has a large right lung pleural effusion related to lung cancer stage II, which is documented multiple times. However, the documentation does not specify whether the pleural effusion is malignant or not. A malignant pleural effusion is a condition where cancer cells spread to the pleural space and cause fluid accumulation3. A malignant pleural effusion is a major complication or comorbidity (MCC) that affects the severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM) of the patient, as well as the reimbursement and quality scores of the hospital4. Therefore, a post discharge query opportunity should be sent to the physician to clarify whether the pleural effusion is malignant or not, based on the clinical indicators such as chest x-ray, thoracentesis, and fluid analysis. The query should provide answer options such as malignant pleural effusion, non-malignant pleural effusion, unable to determine, or other. The other options are not correct because they either do not affect the SOI/ROM of the patient (A and C), or they do not address the specificity of the diagnosis (D). References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide - AHIMA
• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA
• Malignant Pleural Effusion: Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis & Treatment
• Q&A: Coding for malignant pleural effusions | ACDIS

An Excludes 2 note in ICD-10-CM indicates that the condition excluded is not part of the condition represented by the code, but a patient may have both conditions at the same time. When an Excludes 2 note appears under a code, it is acceptable to use both the code and the excluded code together to completely describe the condition. For example, under code R05 Cough, there is an Excludes 2 note for whooping cough (A37.-). This means that a patient can have both a cough and whooping cough at the same time, and both codes can be used together to capture the full clinical picture.

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• ICD-10-CM Features | Diagnosis Coding: Using the ICD-10-CM1

According to the CPT code description, 61154 is the appropriate code for a burr hole procedure for evacuation of a subdural hematoma. A burr hole is a small hole made in the skull with a surgical drill to access the brain or its coverings2. A subdural hematoma is a collection of blood between the dura mater and the arachnoid mater, which are two of the three layers that cover the brain3. The evacuation of the hematoma involves removing the clot and relieving the pressure on the brain. The other codes are not applicable for this procedure because they describe different methods of access (twist drill hole) or different purposes (biopsy or puncture)4.

References:

• CDI Week 2020 Q&A: CDI and key performance indicators1
• Mayo Clinic: Burr hole2
• MedlinePlus: Subdural hematoma3
• CPT Code Book 20234

According to the AHIMA best practice for written queries, queries should be limited to non-leading questions that do not imply a specific answer or diagnosis, but rather ask for the provider’s opinion based on their clinical judgment and the evidence in the health record. Non-leading questions help to ensure that the query is compliant, objective, and respectful of the provider’s authority and autonomy. Leading questions, on the other hand, may introduce bias, influence the provider’s response, or compromise the integrity of the documentation and coding. For example, a non-leading query for a patient with chest pain would be: “What is the etiology of the chest pain?” A leading query would be: “Is the chest pain due to acute myocardial infarction?”

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice—2022 Update1

A drastic drop in the physician query rate might indicate to the CDI manager that the CDI staff need education on identifying query opportunities. The physician query rate is a metric that measures the percentage of records that have at least one query sent by the CDI staff to clarify or improve the documentation. A high query rate may reflect a high level of documentation quality issues or a high level of CDI staff vigilance and expertise. A low query rate may reflect a low level of documentation quality issues or a low level of CDI staff awareness and competence 2. Therefore, a drastic drop in the query rate could suggest that the CDI staff are missing some query opportunities or are not following the query policies and procedures. The CDI manager should investigate the reasons for the drop and provide education and feedback to the CDI staff on how to identify and address query opportunities effectively and compliantly 3.

References: 1: AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition, p. 133 4 2: Understanding CDI Metrics - AHIMA 2 3: The Natural History of CDI Programs: A Metric-Based Model 5

The clinical documentation integrity practitioner (CDIP) should interact with the physician to clarify whether or not the pneumonia is a hospital-acquired condition (HAC) by asking the physician to indicate if the pneumonia was present on admission (POA) based on the initial chest x-ray. This is because the POA status of a condition affects its coding, reporting, and reimbursement, and it is the responsibility of the physician to document the POA status of all diagnoses. The CDIP should not assume that the pneumonia developed after admission based on the timing of symptoms or treatment, as this may not reflect the true clinical picture. The CDIP should also not ask the physician about the causal relationship between the acute kidney injury and the pneumonia, as this is not relevant to the POA status. The CDIP should also not avoid querying the physician based on the presence of another MCC, as this may compromise the accuracy and completeness of documentation. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide
• Present on Admission Reporting Guidelines

A query should include relevant clinical indicators from the health record that support the need for clarification and the query options. Clinical indicators are objective and measurable signs, symptoms, laboratory results, diagnostic test results, medications, treatments, and other documented findings that are related to a specific diagnosis or condition. Information from previous encounters, the impact on quality, and the impact of reimbursement are not appropriate to include in a query, as they may introduce bias, lead the provider, or imply a desired response.

When there are comparative contrasting diagnoses supported by clinical criteria, the correct action is to code both diagnoses, as long as they are not mutually exclusive. Comparative contrasting diagnoses are those that are considered as possible alternatives or differentials for the patient’s condition, such as pneumonia versus bronchitis, or appendicitis versus diverticulitis. Coding both diagnoses will capture the clinical uncertainty and complexity of the case, and will allow for accurate reporting and reimbursement. References: : https://www.ahima.org/media/owmhxbv1/cdip_contentoutline_2023_final.pdf : https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077

Administration should respond to this situation by reviewing the record to determine any potential data integrity impact and/or rebilling implications. According to the AHIMA Practice Brief on Managing an Effective Query Process, post-bill queries are generally initiated as a result of an audit or other internal monitor, and healthcare entities can develop a policy regarding whether they will generate post-bill queries and the timeframe following claims generation that queries may be initiated. The practice brief also states that healthcare entities should consider the following three concepts in the development of a post-bill (including query) policy: applying normal course of business guidelines, using payer-specific rules on rebilling timeframes, and determining reliability of query response over time 2. Therefore, administration should review the record to see if the physician’s response to the query affects the quality of care, patient safety, severity of illness, risk of mortality, or reimbursement, and if so, whether it is appropriate and feasible to rebill the account based on the payer’s rules and the normal course of business guidelines. Administration should also evaluate the reasons for the physician’s delayed response and provide feedback and education to prevent future occurrences.

References: 1: AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition, p. 133 3 2: AHIMA Practice Brief: Managing an Effective Query Process 4

 A pressure ulcer covered by eschar on the right hip is coded as an unstageable pressure ulcer, according to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting. The guidelines state that “Pressure-induced deep tissue damage is defined as a pressure injury that is unstageable due to coverage of the wound bed by slough and/or eschar” 2. Eschar is a thick, dry, black necrotic tissue that obscures the depth of tissue loss and prevents accurate staging of the pressure ulcer 3. Therefore, the provider’s response of “unable to determine” the stage of the pressure ulcer is consistent with the definition of unstageable pressure ulcer. The code for unstageable pressure ulcer of right hip is L89.210 4.

References: 1: AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition, p. 139 2: ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2021, Section I.C.12.b.4 3: Pressure Ulcer/Injury Coding Pocket Guide - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2 4: ICD-10-CM Code L89.210 - Pressure ulcer of right hip, unstageable : AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition : ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2021 : ICD-10-CM Code L89.210 - Pressure ulcer of right hip, unstageable : AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition : ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2021 : ICD-10-CM Code L89.210 - Pressure ulcer of right hip, unstageable : AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077 : ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2021 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/10cmguidelines-FY2021.pdf : ICD-10-CM Code L89.210 - Pressure ulcer of right hip, unstageable https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/L00-L99/L80-L99/L89-/L89.210

A hospital-acquired condition (HAC) is an undesirable situation or condition that affects a patient and that arose during a stay in a hospital or medical facility. CMS has identified 14 categories of HACs for which it will not pay the higher DRG rate if the condition was not present on admission (POA). One of these categories is stage III and IV pressure ulcers. A pressure ulcer is damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by prolonged pressure on the skin. Stage III pressure ulcers involve full-thickness skin loss with damage or necrosis of subcutaneous tissue that may extend down to, but not through, underlying fascia. The ulcer presents as a deep crater with or without undermining of adjacent tissue.

A. Iatrogenic pneumothorax with lung biopsy is not a HAC, because it is not included in the CMS HAC list. Iatrogenic pneumothorax is a HAC only when it occurs with venous catheterization.

B. Iatrogenic pneumothorax with venous catheterization is a HAC, but it may be present on admission if the venous catheterization was performed before the admission to the hospital.

C. Pressure ulcer stage II is not a HAC, because only stage III and IV pressure ulcers are included in the CMS HAC list. Stage II pressure ulcers involve partial-thickness skin loss involving epidermis, dermis, or both. The ulcer is superficial and presents clinically as an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater.

References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530
• Hospital Acquired Conditions | CMS
• ICD-10 HAC List | CMS
• Bedsores (pressure ulcers) - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

Sharing the mission of the CDI program should be done to ensure a clear sense of what CDI is and the CDI practitioner’s role within the organization. The mission statement defines the purpose, goals, and values of the CDI program, and how it aligns with the organization’s vision and strategy. The mission statement also communicates the benefits and expectations of the CDI program to various stakeholders, such as providers, executives, coders, quality staff, and patients. The mission statement can help establish the credibility, professionalism, and identity of the CDI practitioners, and guide their daily activities and decisions 2.

References: 1: AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition, p. 133 3 2: Mission CDI: Guiding goals, values, and principles 1

A noncompliant multiple-choice query is one that does not include at least four options because it may limit the provider’s choice and suggest a preferred answer. A compliant multiple-choice query should include at least four options that are clinically significant, reasonable, and plausible based on the clinical indicators and documentation in the health record. The options should also be listed in alphabetical order to avoid any bias or preference. A compliant multiple-choice query should also allow the provider to add their own response if none of the options are appropriate, and include the option of “unable to determine” if the provider cannot make a definitive diagnosis based on the available information. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline1
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide2
• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update)3

The best place for the provider to document a query response is the next progress note and the problem list because this ensures that the query response is timely, consistent, and integrated into the health record. According to the AHIMA/ACDIS query practice brief1, the provider should document the query response in the health record as soon as possible after receiving the query, preferably in the next progress note. The provider should also update the problem list to reflect any new or revised diagnoses resulting from the query response. This helps to maintain an accurate and comprehensive list of the patient’s current and chronic conditions, which can facilitate continuity of care, quality reporting, and reimbursement. Documenting the query response in an addendum to the history and physical or only on the query form is not sufficient, as it may not capture the current status of the patient or be easily accessible to other providers or coders.

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice—2022 Update1

According to the AHIMA/ACDIS Query Practice Brief, one of the best practices for a compliant query process is to require physicians to document their responses to queries in the health record1. This ensures that the documentation is consistent, accurate, and complete, and that the query and response are part of the permanent record. Verbal responses are not acceptable, as they do not provide a clear audit trail and may lead to errors or discrepancies in coding and billing1. Therefore, the CDI manager should educate the physicians on the importance of documenting their responses in the charts and monitor their compliance. The other options are not recommended, as they may compromise the integrity of the documentation or violate the query guidelines1. References:

• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA

The specificity of pseudomonas pneumonia would increase the relative weight of the diagnosis-related group (DRG) for the patient’s admission, which would affect the reimbursement for the hospital. Relative weight is a factor that reflects the average cost and resource use of a DRG compared to the average cost and resource use of all DRGs. The higher the relative weight, the higher the payment for the hospital. Pseudomonas pneumonia is classified as a major complication or comorbidity (MCC) in ICD-10-CM, which means that it significantly increases the severity of illness and risk of mortality of the patient. MCCs increase the relative weight of a DRG by assigning it to a higher-paying subclass within the same base DRG. For example, according to the CMS FY 2022 Inpatient Prospective Payment System Final Rule1, the relative weight for DRG 193 (Simple pneumonia and pleurisy with MCC) is 1.4819, while the relative weight for DRG 195 (Simple pneumonia and pleurisy without MCC) is 0.7579. Therefore, if the patient is admitted due to pneumonia and has pseudomonas pneumonia as an MCC, the hospital would receive a higher payment than if the patient does not have an MCC.

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• CMS FY 2022 Inpatient Prospective Payment System Final Rule1

APR-DRGs are a patient classification system that assigns each inpatient stay to one of more than 300 base APR-DRGs, and then further stratifies each base APR-DRG into four levels of severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM), based on the number, nature, and interaction of complications and comorbidities (CCs) and major CCs (MCCs). SOI reflects the extent of physiologic decompensation or organ system loss of function, while ROM reflects the likelihood of dying. Both SOI and ROM are used to adjust payment rates, quality indicators, and performance measures for hospitals and other healthcare providers.

The CDI manager can gain more information about the potential opportunities for improvement by auditing focused APR-DRGs that have a high impact on SOI/ROM levels, such as those that have a large variation in relative weights across the four severity levels, or those that have a high frequency or volume of cases. The audit can help identify the documentation gaps, inconsistencies, or inaccuracies that may affect the assignment of SOI/ROM levels, such as missing, vague, or conflicting diagnoses, procedures, or clinical indicators. The audit can also help evaluate the CDI team’s performance in terms of query rate, response rate, agreement rate, and accuracy rate. Based on the audit findings, the CDI manager can develop an education plan for both the CDI team and the physicians to address the specific documentation improvement areas and provide feedback and guidance on best practices.

A. Audit cases for missed diagnosis by the CDI practitioner to target in the education plan. This is not the best way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not capture all the factors that affect SOI/ROM levels, such as procedures, clinical indicators, or interactions among diagnoses. It may also focus only on the CDI practitioner’s performance, without considering the physician’s role in documentation quality and completeness.

B. Audit focused cases by physicians that have a higher SOI/ROM for education plan. This is not a valid way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not identify the documentation improvement opportunities for cases that have a lower SOI/ROM than expected, based on their clinical complexity and acuity. It may also create a perception of bias or favoritism among physicians, if only some are selected for audit and education.

C. Audit cases that have high SOI/ROM assigned by coders for education and follow-up. This is not a reliable way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not reflect the true SOI/ROM levels of the cases, if there are errors or discrepancies in coding or grouping. It may also overlook the documentation improvement opportunities for cases that have low SOI/ROM assigned by coders, despite having high clinical complexity and acuity.

References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530
• 3M™ All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR DRGs) | 3M United States
• Q&A: Understanding SOI and ROM in the APR-DRG system | ACDIS
• Use SOI/ROM scores to enhance CDI program effectiveness | ACDIS

 According to the Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA1, clinical validation is a process by which documentation is evaluated to ensure that the medical record demonstrates enough clinical support for all documented diagnoses as mandated by the False Claims Act. If there is a lack of clinical support for sepsis or UTI within the documentation, a clinical validation query should be sent. Query choices should list sepsis or UTI as ruled out versus ruled in (because the physician is documenting sepsis or UTI), but the query choice should also ask the provider to provide additional clinical support within the medical record. Additional query choices that are supported by clinical indicators listed on the query should also be listed as appropriate1.

In this case, the patient was admitted with a fever, cough, and leukocytosis, which are signs and symptoms of sepsis or UTI. However, three days later, the blood and urine cultures are negative, the patient has been afebrile since admission, and the white blood count is returning to normal, which are indicators that sepsis or UTI may not be present or resolved. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the documented diagnoses of sepsis and UTI and the clinical evidence in the record. A clinical validation query should be sent to clarify if sepsis and UTI are still valid diagnoses or if they have been ruled out after study. The query should also request additional documentation of any other clinical indicators that support the diagnosis of sepsis or UTI, such as vital signs, physical exam findings, inflammatory markers, imaging results, etc1.

References:

• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA1

Educating physicians on severity of illness and risk of mortality is best accomplished by using case studies that demonstrate how documentation affects these indicators and how they impact patient care, quality outcomes, and reimbursement.

References: AHIMA. “CDIP Exam Preparation.” AHIMA Press, Chicago, IL, 2017: 97-98.

Engaging the CDI physician advisor/champion in an effort to avoid future denials is a strategy that impacts the goal of improving documentation integrity by leveraging the influence and expertise of a physician leader who can educate, mentor, and advocate for other physicians on documentation best practices. The CDI physician advisor/champion can act as a liaison between the CDI team and the medical staff, provide feedback and guidance on complex or challenging cases, resolve conflicts or discrepancies in documentation, and promote a culture of collaboration and quality improvement. Physicians are more likely to learn and adopt documentation integrity practices from their peers who understand their clinical perspective and challenges, rather than from non-physician CDI staff or managers.

A. The CDI manager will exclusively provide education. This is incorrect because engaging the CDI physician advisor/champion implies that the CDI manager will not be the sole source of education, but rather will partner with the physician leader to deliver effective and tailored education to the medical staff.

C. Physicians can manage the documentation integrity process. This is incorrect because engaging the CDI physician advisor/champion does not mean that physicians will take over the responsibility of managing the documentation integrity process, which involves multiple stakeholders, such as CDI specialists, coders, quality analysts, and auditors. Rather, physicians will be more involved and supportive of the documentation integrity process as a result of the education and mentorship provided by the CDI physician advisor/champion.

D. Clinicians will not require documentation integrity education. This is incorrect because engaging the CDI physician advisor/champion does not eliminate the need for documentation integrity education for clinicians, but rather enhances and facilitates it by using a peer-to-peer approach that can increase awareness, engagement, and compliance among physicians.

References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530
• Q&A: Defining roles for physician advisor/champion | ACDIS
• Q&A: The Role of the Physician Advisor in CDI | ACDIS
• The Role of a Physician Advisor - UASI Solutions
• PA/NP in Physician Champion / Advisor Role — ACDIS Forums

According to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2023, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is also known as diastolic heart failure or heart failure with normal ejection fraction1. The code category for diastolic heart failure is I50.3-, which includes unspecified diastolic (congestive) heart failure (I50.30), acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure (I50.31), chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure (I50.32), and acute on chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure (I50.33)1. If the documentation does not specify the acuity of the diastolic heart failure, the default code is I50.301. Therefore, the correct coding for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is I50.30.

References:

• ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 20231

The first step the CDI director should take is to gather data on the incidence of inaccurate record documentation because it is important to establish the baseline and scope of the problem, as well as to identify the potential causes and consequences of over-using electronic copy and paste. Data collection can help to measure the frequency, severity, and impact of documentation errors, such as inconsistencies, redundancies, contradictions, or omissions. Data collection can also help to determine the best methods and tools for conducting the documentation integrity project, such as audits, surveys, interviews, or software applications. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide1)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline2
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide1

According to the ACDIS Practice Brief, a query escalation policy should describe how to handle situations in which an answer is not received, an inappropriate answer or comment is provided, etc. The escalation policy should address when the issue is brought to the physician advisor, the department director, or administration with defined actions as to the responsibilities at each level. The policies should reflect a method of response that can realistically occur for the organization1. In this case, since two physicians have significantly lower query response rates than the target, the CDI physician advisor/champion should schedule individual meetings with each low-performing physician to provide feedback, education, and support. A group meeting with all physicians may not be effective or efficient, as it may not address the specific barriers or challenges faced by the low-performing physicians. A meeting with the chair of the gastroenterology department may be helpful, but it may not be sufficient to resolve the issue without direct communication with the low-performing physicians.

References:

• CDI Week 2020 Q&A: CDI and key performance indicators1

The step that the clinical documentation integrity (CDI) manager should take to help avoid future Medicare violations is to collaborate with physician advisor/champion and revenue cycle manager. The physician advisor/champion can help with educating and engaging the physicians on the importance and impact of clinical documentation on coding, reimbursement, quality measures, compliance, and patient care. The revenue cycle manager can help with analyzing and monitoring the denial trends and patterns, identifying and resolving the root causes of denials, implementing corrective actions and preventive measures, and ensuring timely and accurate claim submission and appeal processes. References: : https://www.ahima.org/media/owmhxbv1/cdip_contentoutline_2023_final.pdf : https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077

The ultimate purpose of clinical documentation integrity (CDI) expansion and growth is to show a direct relationship between clinical documentation and quality patient care. According to the web search results, CDI programs aim to improve the quality and efficiency of clinical documentation by ensuring that it is accurate, complete, and consistent. This in turn leads to better health care data, which is vital for capturing the appropriate indicators used for health care facility and provider profiling, reimbursement, risk adjustment, and quality scores12. CDI programs also focus on patient safety, by identifying and resolving any documentation omissions, discrepancies, or adverse events that may affect the patient’s outcome or care3. Therefore, CDI programs demonstrate how clinical documentation can impact the quality of patient care and the performance of health care organizations.

The appropriate action in this case is to query the physician to see if acute renal failure is clinically supported. This is because the patient has signs and symptoms of acute renal failure, such as oliguria, pulmonary edema, and elevated creatinine, but the diagnosis is not documented in the medical record. Acute renal failure is a clinical syndrome characterized by a rapid decline in kidney function and accumulation of metabolic waste products. It can be caused by various factors, such as dehydration, hypovolemia, sepsis, nephrotoxins, or obstruction. Acute renal failure can be classified according to the RIFLE criteria (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-stage kidney disease) or the AKIN criteria (Acute Kidney Injury Network), which are based on changes in serum creatinine and urine output 23. A query to the physician is needed to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of acute renal failure, specify the etiology and severity of the condition, and document any associated complications or comorbidities. A query to the physician will also improve the accuracy and completeness of the documentation and coding, and reflect the true clinical picture and resource utilization of the patient.

References: 1: AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition, p. 133 4 2: Acute Kidney Injury: Diagnosis and Management | AAFP 3: AKIN Classification for Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) - MDCalc

The physician advisor/champion is a key role in the CDI program who serves as a liaison between the CDI staff and the organization’s medical and surgical staff. The physician advisor/champion needs to provide ongoing education regarding coding and reimbursement regulations to the organization’s medical and surgical staff to promote awareness, understanding, and compliance with CDI initiatives and goals.

References: AHIMA. “CDIP Exam Preparation.” AHIMA Press, Chicago, IL, 2017: 97-98.

This is the most compliant query based on the most recent AHIMA/ACDIS query practice brief because it is non-leading, non-suggestive, and provides multiple options for the physician to choose from. It also does not imply any financial or quality implications for adding a diagnosis associated with the BMI.

References: AHIMA/ACDIS. “Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update).” Journal of AHIMA 90, no. 2 (February 2019): 20-29.

AHIMA suggests that an organization should consider a physician response rate of 80% and an agreement rate of 80% as benchmarks for CDI program performance. These rates indicate the level of physician engagement and documentation accuracy in relation to CDI queries.

References: AHIMA. “Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update).” Journal of AHIMA 90, no. 2 (February 2019): 20-29.

A query should be generated to ask the physician for the POA indicator of the fall because the documentation is unclear whether the fall was present at the time of inpatient admission or not. The POA indicator is used to identify conditions that are present or not present at the time of admission, and has payment implications for certain hospital-acquired conditions (HACs). According to CMS, a fall resulting in trauma is one of the HACs that will not be paid at a higher rate if it is not present on admission. Therefore, it is important to clarify the POA indicator of the fall to ensure accurate coding and reimbursement. A query should be non-leading, concise, clear, relevant, and consistent with CDI standards and guidelines.

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• Coding | CMS1
• Present on Admission Indicators - Novitas Solutions2

If the provider’s response to the query is different than what was expected by the CDIP, the CDIP should implement the department’s escalation process to ensure the validity and accuracy of the documentation and the coded data. The escalation process is a standardized procedure that involves a manager, committee, or other supervisory position to review and assess the query and the response, and to determine the appropriate next steps. The escalation process may include contacting the provider for clarification, education, or feedback; consulting with a physician advisor/champion or a coding auditor; or reporting the issue to a higher authority or regulatory body. The escalation process should be documented and communicated clearly and respectfully to all parties involved.

A. Record the query response as disagreed. This is not a sufficient action to take if the provider’s response to the query is different than what was expected by the CDIP. Recording the query response as disagreed may indicate a lack of agreement or consensus between the CDIP and the provider, but it does not address the underlying issue of documentation validity or accuracy. It may also create a negative impression or relationship between the CDIP and the provider.

B. Have a different CDI query the provider. This is not an appropriate action to take if the provider’s response to the query is different than what was expected by the CDIP. Having a different CDI query the provider may create confusion, inconsistency, or redundancy in the query process. It may also undermine the credibility or authority of the original CDI who queried the provider.

C. Revise the query and send it back to the provider. This is not a recommended action to take if the provider’s response to the query is different than what was expected by the CDIP. Revising the query and sending it back to the provider may imply that the CDI is dissatisfied or disagreeing with the provider’s response, which may be perceived as disrespectful or confrontational. It may also suggest that the CDI is trying to influence or coerce the provider to change their response, which may compromise the integrity and compliance of the query process.

References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530
• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice—2022 Update | ACDIS
• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA
• The Provider Query Toolkit: A Guide to Compliant Practices

According to the AHIMA CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, a modifier is a two-digit numeric or alphanumeric code that may be used in CPT and/or HCPCS codes to indicate that a service or procedure has been altered by some specific circumstance, but not changed in its definition or code1. One of the reasons to use a modifier is to indicate that a service or procedure was increased or reduced in comparison to the usual service or procedure2. For example, modifier 22 can be used to report increased procedural services that require substantially greater time, effort, or complexity than the typical service3. The other options are not correct because they do not reflect the purpose of using modifiers. A service or procedure performed in its entirety does not need a modifier, as it is assumed to be the standard service or procedure. A service or procedure resulting in expected outcomes does not affect the coding or reimbursement of the service or procedure. A service or procedure performed by one provider may need a modifier depending on the type of provider, the place of service, and the payer rules, but it is not a general reason to use a modifier. References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide - AHIMA
• Modifiers: A Guide for Health Care Professionals - CMS
• CPT® Modifiers: 22 Increased Procedural Services | AAPC