CDIP Questions and Answers

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

According to the AHIMA CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, a second-level review is a process that involves a review of coded records by a designated person or team to ensure the accuracy and completeness of coding and documentation1. A second-level review may be triggered by various factors, such as high-risk or high-dollar accounts, coding quality indicators, payer requirements, or internal audit findings1. One of the factors that is most likely to trigger a second-level review is a record with multiple major complicating conditions (MCCs)2. MCCs are diagnoses that significantly affect the severity of illness and resource utilization of a patient, and are assigned a higher relative weight in the DRG system3. A record with multiple MCCs may indicate a complex or unusual case that requires additional validation and verification of the coding and documentation. A record with multiple MCCs may also affect the reimbursement, risk adjustment, and quality scores of the hospital, and therefore may be subject to external scrutiny or audit4. The other options are not as likely to trigger a second-level review, as they are not as indicative of coding or documentation issues or risks. A procedure code that increases reimbursement may not necessarily require a second-level review, unless it is inconsistent with the documentation or the clinical indicators. A diagnosis that impacts a quality-of-care measure may be relevant for CDI purposes, but not necessarily for coding validation. An account coded before the discharge summary is available may be incomplete or inaccurate, but it may also be corrected or updated before final billing. References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide - AHIMA
• Building a Resilient CDI: Second Level Review
• Major Complications or Comorbidities (MCC) & Complications or Comorbidities (CC) | CMS
• Demystifying and communicating case-mix index - ACDIS

According to the AHIMA/ACDIS Query Practice Brief, one of the scenarios that warrants a query is when there is clinical evidence of a higher degree of specificity or severity1. In this case, the patient’s COPD exacerbation and oxygen therapy may indicate a higher level of respiratory impairment than chronic respiratory failure alone. Therefore, a query to the provider to see if acute on chronic respiratory failure is supported by the health record is appropriate and compliant. Acute on chronic respiratory failure is a more specific and severe diagnosis that may affect the patient’s severity of illness, risk of mortality, and reimbursement2. The other options are not correct because they either assume a diagnosis without querying the provider, or query for a less specific or severe diagnosis than what the clinical indicators suggest. References:

• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA
• Q&A: Respiratory failure in a drug overdose | ACDIS

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

A physician advisor/champion is a physician leader who supports and advocates for the CDI program and its objectives. A physician advisor/champion can help overcome the objections of other physicians by providing education, feedback, guidance, and mentorship on documentation best practices and their impact on revenue, quality, and patient care. A physician advisor/champion can also act as a liaison between the CDI firm and the medical staff, resolve conflicts or discrepancies in documentation, and foster a culture of collaboration and improvement. Physicians are more likely to trust and engage with their peers who understand their clinical perspective and challenges, rather than an external CDI firm that may be perceived as intrusive or disruptive.

A. Create a vision statement that outlines the project objectives. This is not sufficient to collaborate with physicians and overcome their objections. A vision statement is a general statement that describes the desired outcome of the project, but it does not address the specific concerns or questions that physicians may have about the CDI firm’s role, methods, or benefits.

B. Communicate the benefits of the CDI firm about the project. This is not enough to collaborate with physicians and overcome their objections. Communicating the benefits of the CDI firm may be informative, but it may not be persuasive or credible if it comes from the CDI firm itself, without any endorsement or support from a physician leader within the organization.

C. Hire a consultant to communicate the benefits to the physicians. This is not a good way to collaborate with physicians and overcome their objections. Hiring a consultant may add another layer of complexity and cost to the project, and it may not improve the trust or relationship between the CDI firm and the physicians. A consultant may also lack the clinical expertise or authority to influence the physicians’ behavior or attitude.

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

A CDI program’s vision should reflect its purpose, values, and goals, and align with the organization’s overall vision and mission. Value and mission statements help define the CDI program’s role, scope, and objectives, and communicate them to stakeholders. Reporting and the use of technology are important tools for a CDI program, but they are not part of its vision. Benchmarks and case mix index are performance indicators that measure the CDI program’s outcomes, but they do not reflect its vision. Diagnostic related groups and revenue cycle are aspects of reimbursement that may be affected by the CDI program, but they are not the primary focus of its vision.

The manager of HIM/Coding should be included as a key stakeholder in the clinical documentation integrity (CDI) steering committee to promote CDI initiatives because they are responsible for overseeing the coding and billing processes, ensuring compliance with coding guidelines and regulations, and collaborating with the CDI team to resolve coding and documentation discrepancies. The manager of HIM/Coding can also provide feedback on the CDI program’s impact on coding quality, accuracy, productivity, and reimbursement. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline1
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide2

According to the AHIMA CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, one of the CDI metrics and statistics that CDI managers should track and interpret is the severity level measured against average length of stay (ALOS)1. This indicator reflects the complexity and acuity of the patient population and the quality of care provided by the hospital2. A low-severity level with a high ALOS may indicate under-documentation or under-coding of the patient’s condition, which may affect the hospital’s reimbursement, risk adjustment, and quality scores3. Therefore, the CDI manager should keep in mind that this indicator is a key factor of measurement for quality reports when discussing this observation with physicians, and educate them on the importance of documenting and coding accurately and completely to reflect the patient’s true severity of illness. The other options are not correct because they do not address the issue of severity level measured against ALOS, or they are not relevant to the CDI manager’s role or responsibility. References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide - AHIMA
• Demystifying and communicating case-mix index - ACDIS
• Severity of Illness: What Is It? Why Is It Important? | HCPro

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

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 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

A query should be generated when the documentation is conflicting, meaning that there is contradictory or inconsistent information in the medical record that may affect the accuracy of coding, quality reporting, or reimbursement. For example, if the documentation in the progress notes differs from the documentation in the discharge summary, or if different providers document different diagnoses or procedures for the same patient, a query may be needed to resolve the discrepancy and obtain clarification from the source of the documentation. A query should not be generated when the documentation is legible, consistent, or complete, as these are desirable characteristics of documentation that do not require further clarification or verification.

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• Accurate Documentation is Essential – Knowing When to Query your Providers1

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

Proposed changes to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) take effect on October 1 of each fiscal year (FY), which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year. The IPPS final rule is usually issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) around August 1 of each year, and it updates the Medicare payment policies and rates for acute care hospitals and long-term care hospitals for the upcoming FY. The effective date of the final rule is October 1, unless otherwise specified by CMS 2.

References: 1: Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) 2023 Final Rule Summary of … 3 2: Acute Inpatient PPS | CMS 1

The abbreviation NEC stands for “not elsewhere classified” and is used in the ICD-10-CM Alphabetical Index when a specific code is not available for a condition. The coder should use the NEC notation to locate the closest existing code that matches the documented diagnosis. For example, if the physician documented a malignant neoplasm of the left upper eyelid, but the Alphabetical Index only has an entry for malignant neoplasm of eyelid NEC, then the coder should use the code C44.10 (Unspecified malignant neoplasm of unspecified eyelid, including canthus) and assign a seventh character to specify laterality. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline1
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide2
• ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 20213

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

A CC/MCC capture rate is a metric that measures the percentage of cases that have at least one complication or comorbidity (CC) or major complication or comorbidity (MCC) coded in the medical record. This metric is important for a CDI program because CCs and MCCs affect the severity of illness, risk of mortality, and reimbursement of the cases under the Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) system. A higher CC/MCC capture rate indicates a more accurate and complete documentation of the patient’s condition and the resources used to treat them. A CDI program can use this metric to monitor the effectiveness of its queries, education, and feedback to the providers and coders. A CDI program can also compare its CC/MCC capture rate with national or regional benchmarks to identify areas of improvement or best practices 2.

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

facilities must develop an escalation policy for unanswered queries and address any medical staff concerns regarding queries1. If a query does not receive an appropriate professional response, the case should be referred for further review in accordance with the facility’s written escalation policy2. 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 level1. The policies should reflect a method of response that can realistically occur for the organization1. Therefore, reviewing the facility’s query policies and procedures is the best approach to ensure compliance and consistency in handling unanswered queries.

The other options are not advisable because they either involve skipping the escalation policy, notifying the physician advisor/champion without proper review or feedback, contacting the physician repeatedly without respecting their time or availability, or notifying the coding team without resolving the query issue.

When benchmarking with outside organizations, the clinical documentation integrity practitioner (CDIP) must determine if the organization is benchmarking with hospitals that are its peers because peer hospitals have similar characteristics such as size, location, teaching status, case mix index, and payer mix. Benchmarking with peer hospitals allows for a more accurate and meaningful comparison of performance indicators and outcomes. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline1
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide2

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.

According to AHIMA, clinical documentation is at the core of every patient encounter and it must be meaningful to accurately reflect the patient’s disease burden and scope of services provided. In order to be meaningful, the documentation must be clear, consistent, complete, precise, reliable, timely, and legible1. Reliability is one of the criteria for clinical documentation that means the content of the record is trustworthy, safe, and yielding the same result when repeated1. Reliability ensures that the documentation is consistent with the clinical evidence and reasoning, and that it can be verified by other sources or methods. Reliability also implies that the documentation is free from errors, omissions, contradictions, or ambiguities that could compromise its validity or usefulness1.

References:

• Clinical Documentation Integrity Education & Training | AHIMA1

Reviewing and analyzing physician query content on a regular basis assists in identifying gaps in skills and knowledge of the clinical documentation integrity practitioners (CDIPs) and the providers. By evaluating the quality, accuracy, appropriateness, and effectiveness of the queries, the CDIPs can identify areas of improvement, education, and feedback for themselves and the providers. Reviewing and analyzing physician query content can also help to ensure compliance with industry standards and best practices, as well as to monitor query outcomes and trends2 References: 1: https://www.ahima.org/media/owmhxbv1/cdip_contentoutline_2023_final.pdf  2: https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077

A yes/no query may not be used in circumstances where only clinical indicators of a condition are present, and the condition/diagnosis has not been documented in the health record because it may lead to leading or suggesting a diagnosis that is not supported by the provider’s documentation. A yes/no query should only be used when there is clear and consistent documentation of a condition/diagnosis in the health record, and the query is seeking confirmation or denial of a specific fact or detail related to that condition/diagnosis. A multiple-choice, open-ended, or verbal query may be more appropriate to allow the provider to choose from a list of possible diagnoses, provide additional information, or explain the clinical reasoning behind the documentation. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline1
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide2
• AHIMA Practice Brief: Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice3

The first line of escalation for an unanswered query is the CDI Manager because they are responsible for overseeing the CDI program and ensuring compliance with query policies and procedures. The CDI Manager can monitor the query response rates, identify the providers who are not responding, and communicate with them to address any issues or barriers. The CDI Manager can also provide education and feedback to the providers on the importance and benefits of timely query responses. If the CDI Manager is unable to resolve the problem, then they can escalate it to the next level, such as the Medical Director or the CDI Steering Committee. (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

• CDIP Exam Content Outline1
• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide2
• Q&A: Establishing an escalation policy for inappropriate queries3

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 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

According to AHIMA’s Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice, the clinical documentation integrity practitioner (CDIP) should complete the documentation at the time of discussion or immediately following to avoid a compliance risk for this follow up failure. This is because verbal queries are considered part of the health record and must be documented in a timely and accurate manner to reflect the provider’s response and any changes in documentation or coding. Completing the documentation later or only when there is an agreement may result in errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or delays that may affect the quality and integrity of the health record and the query process. (AHIMA Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice1)

References:

• AHIMA Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice1

This query option is the most compliant based on the most recent AHIMA/ACDIS query practice brief because it meets the following criteria:

• It is based on clinical indicators in the health record that support a reasonable and logical connection between the conditions (femur fracture and osteoporosis).
• It is non-leading and non-suggestive, as it does not imply a specific answer or diagnosis, but rather asks for the provider’s opinion based on their clinical judgment.
• It is concise and clear, as it uses simple and direct language that avoids ambiguity or confusion.
• It is relevant and specific, as it addresses a clinical issue that has an impact on patient care, quality reporting, and/or reimbursement.
• It is consistent with clinical documentation integrity (CDI) standards and guidelines, as it follows the AHIMA/ACDIS query practice brief recommendations for query format, content, delivery, and documentation.

References:

• CDIP® Exam Content Outline (https://www.ahima.org/media/1z0x0x1a/cdip-exam-content-outline.pdf)
• CDIP® Exam Preparation Guide (https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077)
• Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice—2022 Update (https://acdis.org/resources/guidelines-achieving-compliant-query-practice%E2%80%942022-update)

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

An open-ended query is a type of query that allows the provider to respond with free text, rather than choosing from a list of options or answering yes or no. An open-ended query is appropriate when the CDIP is looking for clarity on whether a diagnosis has been “ruled in” or “ruled out”, because it allows the provider to document the final diagnosis or impression based on the clinical evidence and reasoning. An open-ended query also avoids leading or suggesting a specific diagnosis to the provider, which could compromise the integrity and validity of the documentation. (Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update) - AHIMA1)

References:

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

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

In order to best demonstrate the impact of clinical documentation on severity of illness and risk of mortality, examples from the hospital’s actual cases are the most effective for physicians in a hospital. Examples from the hospital’s actual cases can show how specific documentation elements, such as diagnoses, procedures, complications, comorbidities, and present on admission indicators, can affect the severity of illness and risk of mortality scores of the patients, as well as the hospital’s performance and reputation. Examples from the hospital’s actual cases can also provide feedback and education to the physicians on how to improve their documentation practices and standards. References: : https://www.ahima.org/media/owmhxbv1/cdip_contentoutline_2023_final.pdf : https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077

Patient identification and demographic accuracy is the process of ensuring that the patient’s identity and personal information are correctly recorded and verified in the health record and other systems. A potential breach of this process could result in automated registration entries that generate erroneous patient identification, which could lead to patient safety and quality of care issues, enabling fraudulent activity involving patient identity theft, or providing unjustified care for profit2

Authorship integrity is the process of ensuring that the source and content of the health record are authentic, accurate, complete, and consistent. Documentation integrity is the process of ensuring that the health record reflects the patient’s clinical status, treatment, and outcomes. Auditing integrity is the process of ensuring that the health record is reviewed and monitored for compliance, quality, and improvement purposes2

1: https://www.ahima.org/media/owmhxbv1/cdip_contentoutline_2023_final.pdf  2: https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) provides external benchmarks to examine the effectiveness of a facility’s clinical documentation program by developing and disseminating quality indicators (QIs) that measure various aspects of health care quality, such as patient safety, outcomes, efficiency, and effectiveness. These QIs are based on administrative data and can be used to compare the performance of different health care providers or facilities across the nation. The QIs include inpatient quality indicators (IQIs), patient safety indicators (PSIs), prevention quality indicators (PQIs), and pediatric quality indicators (PQIs). These QIs can help clinical documentation improvement (CDI) programs identify areas of improvement, monitor trends, and evaluate the impact of CDI interventions on health care quality 2.

References: 1: Clinical Documentation Improvement Programs: Quality, Efficiency | Deloitte US Analysis 2 2: AHRQ Quality Indicators 3

Unbundling services falls under the False Claims Act because it is a form of coding fraud that involves billing separately for components of a related group of procedures or tests that should be billed as a single code. For example, if a provider performs a comprehensive metabolic panel, which is a blood test that measures several components of the blood, such as glucose, electrolytes, and liver enzymes, and bills for each component individually instead of using the single code for the panel, that is unbundling. Unbundling services can result in overpayment by the government and can violate the False Claims Act, which prohibits submitting false or fraudulent claims for payment to the government, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Violators of the False Claims Act can face civil penalties of up to three times the amount of the false claim plus an additional $11,000 per claim 23.

References: 1: AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition, p. 133 4 2: Coding Fraud | VSG 5 3: False Claims Act | OIG 2