Pass the AHIMA Documentation Integrity Practitioner (CDI) CDIP Questions and answers with CertsForce

A hospital-acquired condition (HAC) is an undesirable situation or condition that affects a patient and that arose during a stay in a hospital or medical facility. CMS has identified 14 categories of HACs for which it will not pay the higher DRG rate if the condition was not present on admission (POA). One of these categories is stage III and IV pressure ulcers. A pressure ulcer is damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by prolonged pressure on the skin. Stage III pressure ulcers involve full-thickness skin loss with damage or necrosis of subcutaneous tissue that may extend down to, but not through, underlying fascia. The ulcer presents as a deep crater with or without undermining of adjacent tissue.

A. Iatrogenic pneumothorax with lung biopsy is not a HAC, because it is not included in the CMS HAC list. Iatrogenic pneumothorax is a HAC only when it occurs with venous catheterization.

B. Iatrogenic pneumothorax with venous catheterization is a HAC, but it may be present on admission if the venous catheterization was performed before the admission to the hospital.

C. Pressure ulcer stage II is not a HAC, because only stage III and IV pressure ulcers are included in the CMS HAC list. Stage II pressure ulcers involve partial-thickness skin loss involving epidermis, dermis, or both. The ulcer is superficial and presents clinically as an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater.

References:

CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530

Hospital Acquired Conditions | CMS

ICD-10 HAC List | CMS

Bedsores (pressure ulcers) - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

According to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 2023, the principal diagnosis is defined as "the condition established after study to be chiefly responsible for occasioning the admission of the patient to the hospital for care"2. In this case, the patient was admitted with shortness of breath, productive yellow sputum, and a temperature of 101.2, which are signs and symptoms of pneumonia. The CXR confirmed the diagnosis of LLL pneumonia, which is a serious condition that requires inpatient care. Therefore, LLL pneumonia is the principal diagnosis.

The secondary diagnoses are defined as "all conditions that coexist at the time of admission, that develop subsequently, or that affect the treatment received and/or the length of stay"2. In this case, the patient had bilateral pleural effusion and kidney failure at the time of admission, which are coexisting conditions that affect the treatment received and/or the length of stay. The renal consult documented AKI with ATN, which is a more specific diagnosis than kidney failure and reflects the severity and etiology of the condition. Therefore, AKI with ATN and bilateral pleural effusion are secondary diagnoses.

References:

CDI Week 2020 Q&A: CDI and key performance indicators1

ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting FY 20232

The coding reference that should be used for coding advice on correct assignment of the procedure code for proper ambulatory payment classification (APC) reimbursement is the AMA CPT Assistant. The CPT Assistant is the official source of guidance from the American Medical Association (AMA) on the proper use and interpretation of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, which are used to report outpatient and professional services. The CPT Assistant provides clinical scenarios, frequently asked questions, coding tips, and updates on CPT coding changes. The CPT codes are used to determine the APC reimbursement for outpatient services under the Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS). (CDIP Exam Preparation Guide)

References:

CDIP Exam Content Outline1

CDIP Exam Preparation Guide2

AMA CPT Assistant3

Medicare Claims Processing Manual Chapter 4 - Part B Hospital (Including Inpatient Hospital Part B and OPPS)

The ultimate purpose of clinical documentation integrity (CDI) expansion and growth is to show a direct relationship between clinical documentation and quality patient care. According to the web search results, CDI programs aim to improve the quality and efficiency of clinical documentation by ensuring that it is accurate, complete, and consistent. This in turn leads to better health care data, which is vital for capturing the appropriate indicators used for health care facility and provider profiling, reimbursement, risk adjustment, and quality scores12. CDI programs also focus on patient safety, by identifying and resolving any documentation omissions, discrepancies, or adverse events that may affect the patient’s outcome or care3. Therefore, CDI programs demonstrate how clinical documentation can impact the quality of patient care and the performance of health care organizations.

According to the AHIMA-ACDIS Practice Brief, a query escalation policy should describe how to handle situations in which an answer is not received, an inappropriate answer or comment is provided, etc. 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 level. The policies should reflect a method of response that can realistically occur for the organization1. In this case, since the attending physician has not responded to the query in an appropriate time frame, the CDIP should escalate the issue to the medical staff leadership, such as the chief medical officer, the department chair, or the physician advisor, who can facilitate communication and education with the attending physician and ensure documentation integrity and compliance1.

References:

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

Malnutrition is a diagnosis that is most likely to trigger a second level review because it affects the severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM) of the patient, as well as the reimbursement and quality measures of the hospital. Malnutrition also requires clinical validation and clear documentation of its etiology, type, degree, and duration2 References: 1: https://www.ahima.org/media/owmhxbv1/cdip_contentoutline_2023_final.pdf  2: https://my.ahima.org/store/product?id=67077

When queries are part of the health record, which is recommended by AHIMA and ACDIS, physicians are responsible for responding to queries in a timely manner and ensuring that their documentation is complete and accurate. If a provider receives too many deficiencies due to incomplete records for failure to respond to queries, their admitting privilege could be suspended by the medical staff committee as a disciplinary action.

References: AHIMA/ACDIS. “Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice (2019 Update).” Journal of AHIMA 90, no. 2 (February 2019): 20-29.

Inconsistent clinically relevant queries may make physicians lose respect for CDI efforts and disengage because they may perceive them as irrelevant, redundant, or contradictory. Clinically relevant queries are those that affect the quality of care, patient safety, severity of illness, risk of mortality, or reimbursement. Inconsistent queries may result from lack of standardization, conflicting guidelines, poor communication, or lack of clinical validation. To avoid inconsistency, CDI practitioners should follow best practices such as using evidence-based criteria, adhering to query policies and procedures, collaborating with coding and quality staff, and seeking feedback from physicians and physician advisors 2.

References: 1: AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition, p. 136 3 2: Proactive CDI: Tackling the Problem of Physician Engagement 4

According to the AHIMA/ACDIS Query Practice Brief, one of the best practices for a compliant query process is to provide ongoing education to physicians on the importance of documentation integrity, the query process, and the impact of documentation on quality measures, reimbursement, and compliance1. Education can help physicians understand the rationale and expectations for responding to queries, as well as the benefits of accurate and complete documentation for patient care and data quality. Education can also address any barriers or challenges that physicians may face in responding to queries, such as time constraints, technology issues, or workflow preferences1. References:

AHIMA/ACDIS Query Practice Brief – Updated 12/2022

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

If the provider’s response to the query is different than what was expected by the CDIP, the CDIP should implement the department’s escalation process to ensure the validity and accuracy of the documentation and the coded data. The escalation process is a standardized procedure that involves a manager, committee, or other supervisory position to review and assess the query and the response, and to determine the appropriate next steps. The escalation process may include contacting the provider for clarification, education, or feedback; consulting with a physician advisor/champion or a coding auditor; or reporting the issue to a higher authority or regulatory body. The escalation process should be documented and communicated clearly and respectfully to all parties involved.

A. Record the query response as disagreed. This is not a sufficient action to take if the provider’s response to the query is different than what was expected by the CDIP. Recording the query response as disagreed may indicate a lack of agreement or consensus between the CDIP and the provider, but it does not address the underlying issue of documentation validity or accuracy. It may also create a negative impression or relationship between the CDIP and the provider.

B. Have a different CDI query the provider. This is not an appropriate action to take if the provider’s response to the query is different than what was expected by the CDIP. Having a different CDI query the provider may create confusion, inconsistency, or redundancy in the query process. It may also undermine the credibility or authority of the original CDI who queried the provider.

C. Revise the query and send it back to the provider. This is not a recommended action to take if the provider’s response to the query is different than what was expected by the CDIP. Revising the query and sending it back to the provider may imply that the CDI is dissatisfied or disagreeing with the provider’s response, which may be perceived as disrespectful or confrontational. It may also suggest that the CDI is trying to influence or coerce the provider to change their response, which may compromise the integrity and compliance of the query process.

References:

CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530

Guidelines for Achieving a Compliant Query Practice—2022 Update | ACDIS

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

The Provider Query Toolkit: A Guide to Compliant Practices