Pass the ACDIS Clinical Documentation Specialist CCDS-O Questions and answers with CertsForce

In the outpatient setting, diagnoses documented as uncertain (e.g., “possible,” “probable,” “suspected,” “rule out”) are generally not coded as confirmed conditions; instead, coding is based on confirmed diagnoses or, when not confirmed, the presenting signs/symptoms. Here, the provider documented only “possible Zika,” which is not a confirmed diagnosis for outpatient reporting. Even though the CDI specialist sees a positive serology result, lab data alone does not replace provider diagnostic confirmation in the assessment/plan. The appropriate next step is to query the provider to confirm whether Zika is the established diagnosis based on the positive test (and whether it is clinically addressed during the encounter). If confirmed, Zika can be coded appropriately and sequenced based on the reason for the visit; if not confirmed or still under evaluation, the symptom (fever) remains first-listed. Option B is incorrect because coders do not “code the result” of a serology test as a diagnosis; they code the condition the test supports once clinically confirmed.

In outpatient CDI,MEATis a commonly taught framework used to determine whether a condition is sufficiently supported asreportablefor a specific encounter. MEAT stands forMonitor, Evaluate, Assess/Address, and Treat. The concept is that diagnoses should not simply be copied forward on a problem list; they should be tied to provider work and clinical relevance during the visit. “Monitor” includes reviewing status, trends, or test results related to the condition. “Evaluate” includes ordering or interpreting studies, considering disease progression, or documenting response to therapy. “Assess/Address” includes documenting stability, exacerbation, or risk and making a plan (education, counseling, referrals). “Treat” includes medications, procedures, or other therapeutic interventions. Using MEAT helps CDI staff educate providers to document thecurrent statusand management of chronic diseases, supports accurate coding and risk adjustment, and reduces denials by showing medical necessity. OPPS, MACRA, and RADV are important regulatory/payment terms, but they are not the standard acronym used to assess encounter-level reportability.

In the outpatient setting, thefirst-listed diagnosisis the condition chiefly responsible for the services provided during the encounter. Here, the stated reason for the visit iscontinued confusion and poor memory, and the provider specifically evaluates the patient’scurrent mental stateand references neurology consultation notes—actions that directly support assessment of a cognitive disorder. While HTN, GERD, and Parkinson’s are also addressed and may be reportable if they meet encounter relevance (e.g., monitored, evaluated, assessed/managed, or treated), they are not the primary driver for today’s visit based on the presenting complaint. Outpatient documentation and coding guidance emphasizes sequencing the diagnosis that best explains the visit’s main purpose first, with additional coexisting conditions listed afterward when they impact care. Since “dementia” is on the active problem list and aligns with the patient’s cognitive symptoms and the physician’s mental-status evaluation, it is the most appropriate first-listed diagnosis among the options.

CDI education focused on diagnosis specificity and complete, clinically supported documentation most directly influences theQualityandCostperformance categories. In the Quality category, many measures depend on correct identification of eligible patient populations (denominators), exclusions, and risk adjustment. When providers document conditions precisely (e.g., specific heart failure type, diabetes complications, CKD stage), it improves the accuracy of coded data that underpins measure calculations and risk stratification. In the Cost category, CMS uses claims-based methodologies that compare observed versus expected costs; accurate diagnosis capture affects patient complexity and risk adjustment, which can materially change expected cost targets and episode attribution. ACDIS outpatient CDI principles emphasize that incomplete or vague documentation can make patients appear less complex than they are, potentially worsening both quality comparisons and cost benchmarks. By contrast, Promoting Interoperability is driven primarily by EHR use and electronic processes, and Improvement Activities reflect practice transformation/engagement rather than diagnosis specificity. Therefore, Quality and Cost are the MIPS categories most impacted by CDI education on specificity.

In outpatient risk adjustment, the highest-impact clarification is often the one that determines whether a condition is currently active (and therefore risk-adjustable) versus historical/resolved. “Leukemia” listed on the problem list, plus active review of CBC/WBC and referral to oncology, strongly suggests ongoing disease evaluation/management. ACDIS outpatient CDI principles emphasize querying to confirm whether the leukemia is active, in relapse, or in remission because that distinction can change code selection from an active malignancy to a history code, and history codes typically do not carry the same risk adjustment impact as an active HCC-bearing diagnosis. While heart failure type/acuity and malnutrition severity are also important for specificity and may affect risk capture, they generally represent refinement of already-established chronic conditions rather than a potential “on/off” determination of a major disease category. Likewise, atrial fibrillation subtype differentiation is clinically useful but usually does not materially change risk adjustment compared with confirming an active hematologic malignancy. Therefore, clarifying leukemia status/acuity is the most impactful risk-adjusted query opportunity.

For reporting Evaluation and Management (E/M) services, the longstanding “key components” framework recognizeshistory, examination, and medical decision making (MDM)as the core elements used to determine the appropriate E/M level when the service is not reported based on time. In outpatient CDI education aligned with ACDIS concepts, MDM is emphasized because it reflects the clinician’s cognitive work and risk-based thinking: the complexity of problems addressed, the amount/complexity of data reviewed and analyzed (labs, imaging, external notes, independent interpretation), and the risk of complications and/or morbidity from additional testing or treatment. “Review of systems” is a sub-element of the history component, not a separate key component. “Nature of presenting problem” and “coordination of care” can be clinically relevant and may support medical necessity or time-based billing (when documented appropriately), but they are not one of the three key components that define E/M reporting structure. Therefore, the best answer is Medical decision making.

Across both inpatient and outpatient CDI, the single expectation that must remain consistent isquery compliance. While productivity targets, the types of query opportunities, and the way “impact” is measured can differ significantly by setting (e.g., DRG/CC-MCC focus in inpatient vs. HCC capture, specificity, and MEAT support in outpatient), the compliance framework for querying does not change. A compliant query must be clinically supported, non-leading, clearly written, and must allow the provider to independently determine the most accurate documentation based on the record. It should include relevant clinical indicators, present reasonable options (including “other”/“unable to determine” when appropriate), and avoid language that appears to request diagnoses for payment purposes. These principles protect documentation integrity, support defensible coding, and reduce audit risk regardless of whether the encounter is hospital-based or ambulatory. By contrast, “review productivity” and “revenue impact” vary widely by program design and setting, and “query opportunities” differ because inpatient vs. outpatient have different reportability rules and documentation drivers. Therefore, query compliance is the metric held to the same standard in both environments.

In outpatient CDI chart review, a key skill is recognizing when medications and treatment plans suggest a specific diabetic complication that is not explicitly documented. Gabapentin is commonly prescribed for neuropathic pain, and in a diabetic patient it is frequently used to treatdiabetic peripheral neuropathysymptoms (burning, tingling, numbness, shooting pain). ACDIS outpatient CDI guidance supports querying when there are strong clinical indicators that a more specific, clinically relevant diagnosis may be present and is being treated at the encounter, because diabetes codes require complication specificity when supported (e.g., “diabetes with neuropathy” rather than unspecified diabetes). The elevated glucose and A1C confirm ongoing diabetes management but do not, by themselves, indicate CKD, macular degeneration, or ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis would require documentation of acute metabolic decompensation and supporting clinical/lab findings, which are not provided here. Therefore, the most appropriate clarification is whether the patient has diabetic peripheral neuropathy (and whether it is painful neuropathy) being managed with gabapentin, so the provider can document the condition clearly and accurately.

In outpatient CDI and coding, the Official ICD-10-CM Guidelines that apply are the universal rules plus the outpatient-specific rules. Section I contains conventions, general coding guidelines, and chapter-specific guidance that govern code assignment in every setting (e.g., code structure, “use additional code,” laterality, sequencing instructions, and condition-specific rules). Section IV is specifically written for outpatient services and drives core outpatient behaviors such as selecting the “first-listed” diagnosis based on the main reason for the encounter, reporting additional diagnoses that are evaluated/assessed/treated or impact care, and applying outpatient-only restrictions (for example, diagnoses documented as “rule out,” “probable,” or “suspected” generally are not coded in outpatient the way they may be for inpatient reporting). ACDIS outpatient CDI education emphasizes teaching providers to document clearly the reason for visit, the assessment/clinical relevance of each condition addressed, and the linkage between conditions and services rendered so Section I and Section IV rules can be applied accurately for compliant reimbursement and reporting.

The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is designed to move reimbursement away from pure volume-based payment and toward value by rewarding organizations that reduce the total cost of care for an assigned Medicare population while meeting defined quality performance requirements. In MSSP, eligible provider groups participate as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and are compared against a financial benchmark. If the ACO’s actual spending comes in below the benchmark and quality standards are achieved, the ACO can earn a portion of the savings—hence “shared savings.” Outpatient CDI supports MSSP success by ensuring documentation accurately reflects patients’ true disease burden (supporting appropriate risk adjustment for benchmarking), and that conditions addressed during visits are clearly documented as evaluated/managed to support reliable coding and quality measurement. While improving transitions of care may be a strategy that helps achieve savings and quality goals, it is not the core purpose of the program itself. Likewise, MSSP is not intended to increase fee schedule payments or simply optimize risk scores; the primary aim is participating in value-based care and sharing in savings when performance supports it.