A recent conversation with a CDI colleague of mine raised several interesting points I would like to share for consideration. We were discussing an initiative where the CDI specialists and their department were going to transition to working on the floor reviewing records with the intent of conversing more with the physicians and residents on documentation improvement opportunities. The impetus of the initiative to transition to the floor was to be more readily

Effective physician communication of patient care serves a wide array of different purposes in the overall scheme of healthcare delivery, the most important consisting of facilitating fully informed coordinated patient focused quality outcomes-based cost-effective care for the patient. The American College of Physicians sums it up nicely when it comes to the primary purpose of clinical documentation in an article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine position

A major challenge of current clinical documentation improvement processes is the undivided focus upon reimbursement as the primary outcome, something undisputable with a clear review of present day Key Performance Indicators. The expression and reporting of the clinical truth in the record beginning with the Emergency Room Documentation, transitioning into the H & P and continuing with the consultant reports and progress notes culminating in the discharge summary

Most Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) programs are mislabeled and misidentified in the present format. Integrity is defined as the quality or state of being complete or undivided per Merriam-Webster. A few years back the association representing the Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialist’s community elected to replace the “Improvement” part of the name to “Integrity”, now referred to as Clinical Documentation Integrity Specialists.

CDI’s present-day Key Performance Indicators centered upon reimbursement do not truly reflect a meaningful account of performance in impacting the quality, completeness and effectiveness of medical record documentation. Common KPIs include number of physician queries left, number of queries responded to by the physician, number of queries responded to by the physician that captured a CC or MCC, number of queries responded to by the physician that impacted severity of illness/risk of mortality number of charts opened and reviewed per day, etc.

What many CFOs are being told: “Clinical validation denials and DRG downgrades are the result of egregious, overaggressive payers who ignore official coding guidelines and arbitrarily challenge diagnoses like sepsis, acute respiratory failure, and metabolic encephalopathy.”

CMS under its Medical Review Policy holds its contractors such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors responsible for insuring the payment of provider claims accurately with the primary mission of reducing provider billing errors. The primary goal is to pay the claims correctly the first time around. MACs review clinical documentation to prevent improper payments and choose claims for review based on many factors such as the service specific improper payment rate,

The use of case-mix as a proxy for judging the effectiveness of clinical documentation improvement programs can be characterized as an unreliable imprecise measure of overall success. While case-mix over time can potentially increase over time as clinical specificity in diagnoses capture improves, there are a myriad of contributing factors that control the ultimate calculation of case-mix. Attributing improvement in documentation to increases and fluctuations

Just like a roadmap or if you use a map direction app such as MapQuest or Waze, one needs a start and end point. The same principle or concept applies to the medical record. There is a definite starting and ending point for a medical record, whether inpatient, observation, office visit, or ED to name just a few settings. Let’s focus upon hospitalization…More than half of patients are admitted to the hospital from the ED so that for all intents and purposes is the starting point.

Clinical documentation improvement has evolved over the last ten years with the advent of the electronic health record and the ability to use natural language processing and other key software to enhance the overall efficiencies and effectiveness of medical record chart reviews. This facilitates the identification of opportunities for diagnoses reporting, hospital acquired conditions and patient safety indicator clarifications. As a whole the profession has not kept up