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

The definition in option B is the official Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) definition used for inpatient coding: the principal diagnosis is the condition determined—after evaluation—to be chiefly responsible for the admission. It is not simply the first condition written, nor necessarily the “worst” or most severe condition; it is the reason for admission once the workup clarifies the clinical picture. CDI practice reinforces this because principal diagnosis selection drives DRG assignment, quality metrics, and reporting, and errors often stem from confusing presenting symptoms with the final established diagnosis. Although outpatient settings use different concepts (e.g., first-listed diagnosis for the encounter), ACDIS education frequently contrasts inpatient “principal diagnosis” with outpatient “first-listed” to prevent documentation and coding misalignment. Clinicians should document the definitive condition when known (and link symptoms to that condition), and clearly describe diagnostic uncertainty when not yet established. This clarity supports compliant coding, accurate benchmarking, and defensible medical necessity across settings.

RADV (Risk Adjustment Data Validation) is an audit process used to validate that risk-adjusting diagnoses submitted for payment are supported by compliant medical record documentation. A foundational requirement is that the record is properly authenticated by an acceptable provider—meaning the documentation must be attributable to the treating clinician through a valid signature. In compliant documentation standards emphasized in outpatient CDI education, acceptable authentication may be a traditional hand-written signature or an electronic signature/attestation that meets organizational and regulatory policy. Option B is not correct because diagnoses do not have to appear only on a facesheet or “final diagnosis” list; they may be supported within the body of the note (assessment/plan, problem-based charting, or other authenticated sections) as long as they are clearly documented and clinically supported. Options A and D are not reliably true statements in a general RADV context because RADV focuses on diagnoses supported by appropriate provider documentation and acceptable encounter record criteria; “technician-assigned” diagnoses are not acceptable, and radiology documentation alone may not meet all validation expectations depending on the program’s rules and encounter context.

A Stage 4 pressure ulcer (pressure injury) is characterized byfull-thickness tissue losswithextensive destruction, tissue necrosis, or damage to muscle, bone, or supporting structures. The key phrase in the question—“necrosis of soft tissue through the underlying muscle”—signals a depth of injury that extends beyond the subcutaneous tissue and involves muscle, which is consistent with Stage 4. By comparison, Stage 2 involves partial-thickness skin loss with exposed dermis (no necrosis through deeper structures). Stage 3 involves full-thickness skin loss where adipose may be visible, butmuscle, tendon, or bone are not exposed; undermining and tunneling may occur, yet the defining line is that it does not extend to muscle/bone involvement. “Stage 5” is not part of standard pressure ulcer staging used in coding and documentation. Outpatient CDI practice emphasizes documenting the exact stage, anatomic location, laterality when applicable, and whether the ulcer is healing or complicated (infection/osteomyelitis) because stage drives specificity, severity capture, and appropriate care planning documentation.

Outpatient CDI programs should share provider-facing metrics that are clinically meaningful, aligned with ambulatory documentation goals, and unlikely to be perceived as payment-driven prompting.RAF scoresare an appropriate metric because they reflect how well the documented and coded condition burden represents the patient panel’s complexity in risk adjustment models. Discussing RAF supports education around accurate diagnosis capture, specificity, and annual recapture of active chronic conditions that are monitored, evaluated, assessed/addressed, or treated. In contrast,APC payment ratesare facility OPPS payment constructs and typically are not actionable for individual ambulatory provider documentation improvement.HCC per member per month paymentsis explicitly financial and can create compliance risk by tying documentation discussions directly to payment, which outpatient CDI guidance warns against in provider messaging.MCC ratesare primarily an inpatient DRG severity concept and are not the most relevant outpatient performance measure. Therefore, RAF scores best balance provider relevance, program goals, and compliant education focus.

The strongest CDI query opportunity is clarifying whether the UTI iscatheter-associated. The patient has anindwelling Foley catheter, significant leukocytosis (WBC 20), apositive urine culture for E. coli, and is being treated with antibiotics for UTI—these indicators raise a clear question about theetiology of infectionand whether it is related to the urinary catheter. In outpatient CDI practice, linking the infection to a device (when clinically supported) improves documentation accuracy, supports correct code assignment, and has important quality and compliance implications because catheter-associated UTIs are captured differently than uncomplicated UTIs. By comparison, querying the “etiology of BPH” is not supported as an immediate gap (BPH is already stated), and the “etiology of low back pain” is less directly tied to the documented treatment focus (UTI management). “Leukocytosis” is a lab finding that is already objectively supported and often represents a symptom/abnormal result rather than the principal clarification needed. Therefore, confirming whether the UTI is related to the Foley catheter is the best, most clinically anchored query.

In the outpatient setting, when the provider does not document a definitive diagnosis for the acute complaint (e.g., influenza, sinusitis, URI), ICD-10-CM guidance directs coders to report thesigns and symptomsthat are documented and addressed. Here, the clinician documentscongestion, fever, and malaiseand provides treatment instructions for those symptoms (OTC meds, rest, follow-up). That makes the symptom codes the most appropriate representation of the reason for the encounter. Outpatient CDI principles further emphasize that chronic conditions likeDM, GERD, and HTNshould only be coded when the documentation shows they wereevaluated, monitored, assessed/managed, or treatedduring the visit (e.g., status, control, medication adjustment, related testing, counseling). In this note, the plan targets only the acute symptoms and does not demonstrate active management of the chronic conditions beyond listing history/medications. Therefore, the guideline most directly applicable to correct coding of the encounter iscodes that describe symptoms and signs.

In outpatient CDI practice, a common reason to query is a mismatch between what is being evaluated/treated and what is explicitly documented as an active condition for the encounter. A diagnostic chest x-ray aligns with the already-documented symptom (chronic cough), and a nutrition specialist referral aligns with an established diagnosis (obesity); neither inherently suggests an undocumented condition. Prescribing captopril aligns with documented HTN management, so it generally would not create documentation ambiguity requiring clarification (even though ACE inhibitors can be associated with cough, the plan alone does not establish a new reportable diagnosis). In contrast, ordering an HbA1c often signals assessment for diabetes, impaired glucose regulation, or monitoring of known diabetes. Because diabetes is not listed in the history provided, the HbA1c order may prompt the CDI specialist to query whether the provider is evaluating a suspected or existing glycemic disorder, whether there is a diagnosis such as prediabetes/diabetes being addressed, and to ensure the record clearly supports the medical necessity and any reportable condition.

Under Medicare billing rules applied in outpatient CDI education,observation services are outpatient(typically paid under Part B), even though the patient may stay in a hospital bed and receive ongoing monitoring and treatment. Therefore, anED visit that converts to observationremains an outpatient encounter from a billing and documentation perspective, and the services are reported/paid as outpatient. By contrast, when an ED visit results in aninpatient admission, the encounter transitions to inpatient status, and many hospital ED services immediately preceding admission are commonly bundled/packaged with the inpatient stay rather than billed as a separate outpatient encounter. A scheduledsigmoid resectionis generally a major procedure that is not typically performed as ambulatory/outpatient surgery in routine circumstances, so it is not the best outpatient choice here. Finally, “admission for COPD exacerbation with LOS less than two midnights” is ambiguous because “admission” implies inpatient, even though short stays may sometimes be observation/outpatient depending on medical necessity and the 2-midnight guidance. The clearest outpatient encounter is ED leading to observation.

In the outpatient follow-up setting, when the acute stroke event has occurred in the recent past and the patient is now being evaluated for residual deficits, documentation and coding should focus on thesequelae(late effects) rather than re-coding the acute infarction itself—unless the provider clearly states the stroke is still in the acute phase and being actively treated as such. ACDIS outpatient CDI principles stress selecting the diagnosis that best reflects the reason for today’s encounter and the condition being assessed/managed. Here, the ongoing clinical issue driving follow-up care is the persistent neurologic deficit (right-sided weakness/hemiparesis) after the cerebral infarction. Option C is the most specific and clinically accurate because it captures (1) the relationship to the prior cerebral infarction (“following cerebral infarction”) and (2) laterality and dominance (“right dominant side”), which improves code specificity and reflects functional impact. Option A incorrectly keeps the focus on an unspecified cerebral infarction rather than the residual deficit, and option D is too nonspecific compared with a clearly described hemiparesis.

The patient’s RAF is calculated by adding the applicable HCC weights plus the demographic factor, but only after applying the HCC model’s hierarchy rules. In outpatient risk adjustment education (as emphasized in ACDIS-based training), certain condition groups are hierarchical—meaning multiple related diagnoses in the same hierarchy do not “stack.” Instead, only the highest-ranked HCC in that disease group contributes to the RAF. Here, “diabetes with nephropathy” and “diabetes with retinopathy” both carry the same HCC weight (0.166) and fall within the diabetes complication hierarchy, so they do not add together; only one 0.166 value is counted. Atrial fibrillation contributes separately (0.299), and the demographic risk factor contributes (0.332). Therefore, the final RAF is 0.166 + 0.299 + 0.332 = 0.797. This illustrates why outpatient CDI focuses on documenting all clinically supported conditions for care accuracy, while understanding that some related diagnoses won’t increase RAF beyond the highest applicable HCC in that hierarchy.