Q: As a traveling consultant, I review many types of inpatient hospital records. As hospitals have implemented electronic health records (EHR), I’ve seen documentation worsen. The ability to cut and paste information in the record has compromised coding accuracy. It has also increased the volume of queries, which frustrates physicians. For example, a physician performs a history and physical (H&P) in his or her office one week prior to admitting a patient to the hospital. The first progress note in the EHR—as well as each subsequent progress note—includes the exact same documentation. This documentation, which continues for four days while the patient is in the hospital, is clearly based on the original H&P. Obviously, the documentation has been copied and pasted from one note to another. Even the patient’s vital signs remain exactly the same as they were in the physician’s office. Coders have no way of knowing whether physicians who treat the patient in the hospital agree with any test findings because residents simply cut and paste the results in each subsequent progress note. Residents claim that they do this solely for the attending physician’s convenience. Clinical documentation improvement (CDI) specialists don’t address the problem because they are more focused on determining the accuracy of the MS-DRG. Is there a solution that will keep physicians, coders, and CDI specialists all on the same page?
Q: Should we query for the specific pulmonary exacerbation of cystic fibrosis (CF)? Coding Clinic states that the exacerbation of CF should be listed first.
Q: What CPT ® code best describes the Bier block procedure? We are toiling over this and the most recent CPT Assistant says to use 64999 (unlisted procedure, nervous system). But the article referenced is from 2004. We just want to make sure there is nothing more recent.
Q: It appears that one requirement for using CPT ® codes 15002–15005 with application of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is that the wound must be healing by primary intention. Can you explain this? We have never used these codes with preparation for vacuum assisted closure (VAC) placement, but it doesn't make sense, as NPWT is almost always used for wounds healing by secondary intention. Our physicians appreciate any clarification.
QUESTION: I work for a gastrointestinal (GI) practice and I have a question regarding the correct sequence for adding diagnosis codes to a claim. I have advised our physicians and billers that the primary diagnosis code is always the reason for the visit. I am a little confused about the remaining diagnosis codes the physician will write down in no specific order. Billers will report codes in the order the physicians write down the diagnoses and not always the reason for the visit. For example, a patient is referred for a consult due to weight loss. The patient comes for the consult and the physicians may put down 787.29 (other dysphagia), 401.1 (benign hypertension), 783.21 (abnormal loss of weight), 787.99 (change in bowel habits) in this order and leave it up to the person entering the info to figure it out. I would report 783.21 first since that was the reason for the visit but then I’ve been putting the GI codes next and then anything else last. What is the correct sequence when adding diagnosis codes to a claim?
Q: I have a question about coding transplant complications. My understanding is if the complication affects the transplanted organ, then coders should assign a code for the transplant complication itself. Is this correct? Consider the following physician documentation: Final A/P: Acute renal failure in patient with history of renal transplant. Should coders report 996.81 (complications of transplanted kidney) and 584.9 (acute kidney failure, unspecified)? Also consider this documentation: CHF in heart transplant patient . Should coders report 996.83 (complications of transplanted heart) and 428.0 (CHF, unspecified)?
