Knowledge Base Article

Fall is my favorite time of year. How could it not be when kids are going back to school, college football returns, and although the summer heat lingers longer than I would like, we have some spectacular fall foliage. Everything I love about fall at the most basic is consistent from year to year but in truth brings about tremendous change. Maybe it’s my oldest nephew entering high school this year, or the first weekend of regular season football shattering the predictions in the football standings - at the end of the day one constant of fall is change.

The one constant I have seen in health care for more years than I care to think about now is change. Exhibit A: the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting updates go into effect every fall on October 1st with the start of a new CMS Fiscal Year. In the update, narrative changes appear in bold text. However, with the FY 2017 Guidelines there are some significant changes, of which one in particular has sparked a lot of debate in the Coding and Clinical Documentation Community.

Key NARRATIVE Changes

“With”

“The word “with” should be interpreted to mean “associated with” or “due to” when it appears in a code title, the Alphabetic Index, or an instructional note in the Tabular List. The classification presumes a causal relationship between the two conditions linked by these terms in the Alphabetic Index or Tabular list. These conditions should be coded as related even in the absence of provider documentation explicitly linking them, unless the documentation clearly states the conditions are unrelated. For conditions not specifically linked by these relational terms in the classification, provider documentation must link the conditions in order to code them as related. The word “with” in the Alphabetic Index is sequenced immediately following the main term, not in alphabetical order.”

Code assignment and Clinical Criteria

The New addition to the guidelines, “Code assignment and Clinical Criteria,” is the “hot button” that has sparked much debate as to what this really means.  

“The assignment of a diagnosis code is based on the provider’s diagnostic statement that the condition exists. The provider’s statement that the patient has a particular condition is sufficient. Code assignment is not based on clinical criteria used by the provider to establish the diagnosis.”

This guidance poses a real dilemma for Professional Coders and Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) Specialists as we include clinical indicators when constructing a query for the physician and government contractors have become notorious for denying a claim for lack of clinical indicators in the documentation supporting the coded diagnosis. Unfortunately, I have yet to see, read or hear about a good solution for this guidance.

Zika virus infections

1. “Code only confirmed cases
   Code only a confirmed diagnosis of Zika virus (A92.5, Zika virus disease) as documented by the provider. This is an exception to the hospital inpatient guidelines Section II, H.
   
   In this context, “confirmation” does not require documentation of the type of test performed; the physician’s diagnostic statement that the condition is confirmed is sufficient. This code should be assigned regardless of the stated mode of transmission.
   
   If the provider documents “suspected”, “possible” or “probable” Zika, do not assign code A92.5. Assign a code(s) explaining the reason for encounter (such as fever, rash, or joint pain) or Z20.828, Contact with and *suspected) exposure to other viral communicable diseases.”

Hypertension

With the transition to ICD-10 last October there was one code for Hypertension (I-10). There was no longer a way to differentiate when it was actually a “hypertensive crisis” or “hypertensive emergency.”

As of October 1, 2016, they are back.

“Hypertensive Crisis
Assign a code from category I16, Hypertensive crisis, for documented hypertensive urgency, hypertensive emergency or unspecified hypertensive crisis. Code also any identified hypertensive disease (I10-I15). The sequencing is based on the reason for the encounter.”

Documented Pressure Ulcer Stage

There are two new changes for 2017. First being for patients admitted with pressure ulcers documented as healing. “For ulcers that were present on admission but healed at the time of discharge, assign the code for the site and stage of the pressure ulcer at the time of admission.”

The second change is for the patient admitted with pressure ulcer evolving into another stage during the admission. “If a patient is admitted with a pressure ulcer at one stage and it progresses to a higher stage, two separate codes should be assigned: one code for the site and stage of the ulcer on admission and a second code for the same ulcer site and the highest stage reported during the stay.”

While I have highlighted a few of the key narrative changes, it is worth noting that there are over 40 narrative changes in the guidelines. Looking for specific changes also made me realize how many times the guidelines advise “when documentation is unclear the provider should be queried” (26 times).

From the CDI Specialist perspective the guidelines provide a good foundation for understanding and appreciating the coding conventions to which Coding Professionals must adhere. They are also an essential read for anyone preparing for the Certified Clinical Documentation Specialist (CCDS) exam.

I encourage Coding Professionals and CDI Specialists to read the entire document and be on the lookout for how to register for our fall Inpatient Coding Updates Webinar that is held annually in October.