Q: How can our team prepare for potential productivity losses post-ICD-10 implementation, specifically regarding procedure codes? Should we consider hiring additional staff or staff with a surgical background?
QUESTION: Our pulmonologists are not comfortable documenting acute respiratory failure unless the patient is on a ventilator. Also, they rarely document chronic respiratory failure, even in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients on continuous home oxygen. I’m trying to develop standard query forms for acute and chronic respiratory failure and am running into these obstacles. How do you recommend handling this problem?
Q: If the physician documents “concerning for,” “considering,” “cannot be ruled out,” or “cannot be excluded” for a diagnosis, is that considered an uncertain diagnosis? Can those terms be coded if the patient is being worked up? Are the terms “concerning for” and “considering” equal to the uncertain diagnosis terms “yet to be ruled out”?
Q: I need further clarification regarding documentation of toxic metabolic encephalopathy. I’m trying to code two different cases in which a physician documents acute mental status change secondary to an infectious process . In each case, the patient’s metabolic panels don’t appear to be abnormal; however, one of the patients is septic. The physician thinks that documenting and coding sepsis separately from encephalopathy would result in unbundling. However, I disagree because coding the sepsis separately demonstrates severity. What is the correct logic to use in each of these cases?
QUESTION: Recently, reviewers have denied diagnostic code 584.9 (acute renal failure [ARF]) based on lab values. The diagnosis is well documented and treated by the attending physician, but reviewers are stating the lab values do not support the diagnosis of ARF. The lab values (creatinine/blood urea nitrogen) went from normal to abnormal, and we found no definitive standards for lab parameters to meet the definition of ARF. Following coding guidelines for reporting secondary diagnoses, the ARF was clinically evaluated, the patient received therapeutic and diagnostic procedures, and there was an extended length of stay/increased nursing care. As coders, we feel it is inappropriate to question the physician’s clinical judgment, and reporting the ARF as a secondary diagnosis is correct. Based on the documentation in the record, is it appropriate to code the ARF?
