Q: We recently had attending physicians send back queries with responses by the physician assistant (PA) or nurse practitioner (NP) who documented for them. Is it acceptable for a PA or NP to answer queries after the patient is discharged?
Q: In terms of coding blood transfusions, does the documentation of which intravenous (IV) site used have to come from the physician in the progress note or can this particular information be extrapolated from nursing notes, orders, etc.? As far as I can tell, a blood transfusion is usually administered to whatever peripheral IV line/site is available, unless otherwise contraindicated or instructed differently by a specific physician order.
Q: Is there guidance on reviewing a record, such as an operative note, that has not been signed by a physician? I am at a facility that allows coding from unsigned transcriptions. I was always told that the information needs to be confirmed by a signature as valid before including that information in the review worksheet. Do you have any recommendations for this?
Q: I am having trouble with ICD-10-PCS coding for a perineal laceration repair. Some sources state that the correct code uses the perineal anatomic region, not muscle repair. Could you please clarify the correct ICD-10-PCS code for a second-degree obstetrical (perineum) laceration that includes muscle?
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?
Q: In my facility, we are supposed to send an email to our physician advisor (PA) and to administration if a query is not answered within a week. However, this policy doesn’t work well because administration does not do anything with that information, and the PA doesn’t have time to review unanswered queries. Do you have any suggestions concerning when to let a query go unanswered?
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 have been asked to build a query for a diagnosis of SIRS and/or sepsis for the following scenario: The patient was admitted for an infection urinary tract infection (UTI), pyelonephritis (PNA) and meets two SIRS criteria. The patient may be treated with oral or intravenous antibiotics, and may be on a general medical floor (not intensive care). The physician did not document SIRS or sepsis. I am having a hard time with this query because I am not sure if this would be considered adding new information to the chart or leading the physician by introducing a new diagnosis. Do you have any suggestions?
Q: Can “in the setting of”' be interpreted as “due to” in ICD-10-CM? For example, the physician documented that the patient has a urinary tract infection in the setting of a urinary catheter.
Q: In ICD-9-CM, sprains and strains fall under the same codes. Will that also be the case in ICD-10-CM or are we going to report these injuries separately?
Q: When I started as a coder, I learned that the complication code, such as from ICD-9-CM series 998 or 999, takes precedence as the reason of admission when present with another contributing condition. Is this correct, and is there any written guidance from AHA Coding Clinic for ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM/PCS that discusses this?
Q: Should “diabetes with gastroparesis” be coded as 536.3, diabetes with a complication code? I understood that the term ‘"with’" can link two diagnoses, but that it does not represent a cause-and-effect relationship. Can you please clarify this, and why a cause-and-effect relationship can be assumed in the term “diabetes with gastroparesis”?
Q: A patient came to the ED with shortness of breath (SOB). The admitting diagnosis was possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to SOB and elevated troponin levels. The ACS was ruled out. Elevated troponin levels were assumed to be due to chronic renal failure (CRF), and no reason was given for SOB. Before discharge, the patient was noted with an elevated temperature and found to have a urinary tract infection (UTI). All treatment was directed at the UTI, and the doctor noted the discharge diagnosis as the UTI. What would be the principal diagnosis in this case?
Q: How should the diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) and encephalopathy be sequenced, specifically which diagnosis should be the principal? If physician documentation indicates that the patient came in with confusion, can encephalopathy be assigned as the principal diagnosis if it is due to the UTI and no other contributing issues are present?
Q: Can CDI programs use the information on ambulance forms or trip tickets to abstract from if the information is pulled into or reiterated in the ED or history and physical (H&P) documentation? Our staff doesn’t want to miss criteria that would diminish our ability to substantiate the true severity of illness of some patients, but I have been informed that coders are not allowed to code from ambulance papers or information.
