Alabama HIMA: Clinical Documentation Transformation
April 14, 2016
Disclaimer
• This material is designed and provided to communicate information about inpatient coding, clinical documentation, and/or compliance in an educational format and manner
• The author is not providing or offering legal advice but, rather, practical and useful information and tools to achieve compliant results in the area of clinical documentation, data quality, and coding
• Every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the educational information provided is useful and accurate
• Applying best practice solutions and achieving results will vary in each hospital/facility and clinical situation
2
Discussion Topics
• Evolution and Differences of DRG systems and the impact on clinical data
• Overview of APR DRG Methodology
• Public Reporting and Why it Matters
• Collaborate and Build a Team
3
Discussion Topics • Evolution and Differences of DRG systems and the impact on clinical data
– History of DRGs – MS DRGs – APR DRGs
• Medical Record is the core / foundation for clinical data management – RAC Audits – Compliance – Severity of Illness (SOI) and Risk of Mortality (ROM) – Profiling Hospitals and Physicians – Hospital Acquired Conditions
• Public Reporting and Why it Matters – Healthgrades.com – Hospitalcompare.gov – Qualitycheck.org – Data.gov
• Collaborate with Leadership to gain support for the CDI Program – Establish a Steering Committee – Establish an Operational Committee – Select a Physician Champion
4
Brief History of DRGs
5
American Health Information Management Association. “Evolution of DRGs (updated).”
Journal of AHIMA (Updated April 2010) Copyright ©2016 by the American Health
Information Management Association. All rights reserved.
Medicare Severity (MS) DRGs
• MS DRGs were implemented October 1, 2007 to better recognize severity of illness
– The MS DRGs were a significant improvement but it does not account the actual complexity of the Medicare population
• Does not capture multiple additional comorbidities or complications
– MS DRGs have a three-tiered structure
• MCC
• CC
• Without MCC/CC
– In the public domain
6
3M™ APR DRGs: Beyond Resource Use
Development of a new method and refinement to evaluate hospitals
• Evaluate hospitals across an extensive range of outcome and resource measures
• Evaluate variances in inpatient mortality rates
• Implement and support of critical pathways
• Identification of continuous quality improvement projects
• The need for a system to accurately capture “Case Mix Complexity”
7
3M™ APR DRGs
• Overview: – All Patient Refined Diagnostic Related Group
– Developed by 3M • AP DRGs used initially as the base
• Yale’s R DRGs incorporated
• PM DRGs (pediatric modification) National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institution were integrated
– Much more clinically uniform and similar
– Calculates a severity of illness (SOI)
– Calculates a mortality risk (ROM)
– Takes resource intensity into consideration • Captures differences in the patient’s complexity of illness
8
3M™ APR DRGs
9
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Health-Information-Systems/HIS/Products-
and-Services/Products-List-A-Z/APR-DRG-Software/
Factors Used to Calculate 3M™ APR DRGs – Case Mix Complexity
Factors used to
Calculate APR DRGs
Severity of illness
Risk of mortality
Prognosis
Treatment difficulty
Need for intervention
Resource intensity
10
National Depth of Coding Trends
11
15.28
13.28
11.66
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
Mar
ylan
d
Vir
gin
ia
Mic
hig
an
No
rth
Car
olin
a
Wis
con
sin
Mai
ne
Oh
io
Was
hin
gto
n
Ken
tuck
y
Wes
t V
irgi
nia
Ari
zon
a
Ind
ian
a
Illin
ois
Uta
h
Co
lora
do
Mis
sou
ri
Del
awar
e
Ore
gon
Sou
th C
aro
lina
Nev
ada
Min
nes
ota
Co
nn
ecti
cut
Rh
od
e Is
lan
d
Texa
s
Mo
nta
na
Ten
nes
see
Idah
o
Geo
rgia
Neb
rask
a
Ver
mo
nt
New
Ham
psh
ire
Pen
nsy
lvan
ia
Mas
sach
use
tts
No
rth
Dak
ota
Cal
ifo
rnia
Ala
bam
a
Ala
ska
New
Jer
sey
Flo
rid
a
Okl
aho
ma
Lou
isia
na
Haw
aii
Sou
th D
ako
ta
New
Yo
rk
New
Mex
ico
Kan
sas
Wyo
min
g
Ark
ansa
s
Mis
siss
ipp
i
Iow
a
Definition of Severity
• Severity of illness (SOI) is defined as the degree of physiological decomposition of body systems – What does this mean?
• Severity describes how ill a patient is and what resources are required to treat a patient
• Risk of mortality (ROM) is the likelihood of dying
• Resource Intensity is the relative volume and types of diagnostic, therapeutic and bed services used in the management of a particular disease
12
APR DRG Levels –
13
Benefits
Adjust for SOI
Reimburse appropriately
25
MDCs
2 Subclasses
Severity of Illness [SOI]
Risk of Mortality
[ROM]
1 Minor
2 Moderate
3 Major
4 Extreme
311 APR DRGs
+
3 Unrelated APR DRGs
2 Invalid APR DRGs
• Each SDx* → SOI and ROM value
• Each DRG → SOI and ROM value
* Some exclusions apply
14
Severity DRG Decision Flow
MDC
Assignment
PDx Selection
Valid Procedure?
Medical Severity DRG
Surgical Severity DRG
SDx Selection
Interaction between PDx, each SDx SOIs and Procedures
Severity DRG
DRG SOI
DRG ROM
1 Minor
2 Moderate
3 Major
4 Extreme
SDx SOI
SDx ROM
1 Minor
2 Moderate
3 Major
4 Extreme
Key Concepts: Overall SOI Assignment Overall SOI assignment
• All ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes have a default severity of illness (SOI) level
– Minor (1)
– Moderate (2)
– Major (3)
– Severe (4)
• Secondary diagnosis (SDx) SOI levels do not “count” when the diagnosis is used as the principal diagnosis (PDx)
– UTI as SDx = SOI 2
– UTI as PDx = APR DRG 463: Urinary Tract Infection - SOI of 1
• The default SOI maybe excluded, promoted, or demoted based on its relationship with the principal diagnosis (PDx)
15
Approach to 3M™ APR DRGs – Rerouting Logic
• Rerouting Logic – Unique to APR DRGs
– Overly broad principal diagnosis
– Sequencing of principal and secondary diagnosis is blurred or indistinct
• Re-routing logic reassigns the patient to a new APR DRG or SOI
– Within the same MDC (Within MDC Rerouting)
– Across MDCs (Across MDC Rerouting)
16
Patient 1
Code Description SOI
PDX I63.9 Cerebral Infarct
SDx A41.9 Sepsis, NOS 3
SDx J69.0 Aspiration PNA 4
SDx N39.0 UTI 2
SDx A49.8 E. Coli 1
APR DRG 045: CVA w/ Infarct
Severity Level: 3 (Major)
MDC 001: Nervous System
Patient 1
Code Description SOI
PDX I63.9 Cerebral Infarct
SDx A41.51
Sepsis due to E. Coli
4
SDx J69.0 Aspiration PNA 4
SDx N39.0 UTI 2
SDx A49.8 E. Coli 1
APR DRG 045: CVA w/ Infarct
Severity Level: 4 (Extreme)
MDC 001: Nervous System
Secondary Diagnosis SOI Adjustment: Promotion
17
Additional specificity of sepsis will “promote” or increase the SOI level
Secondary Diagnosis SOI Adjustment: Demotion
The SOI is demoted or decreased in this example because pleural effusion is typically seen in CHF patients; however, in this example, the patient had a thoracentesis so we can report the pleural effusion. (AHA Coding Clinic 3rd Quarter 1991 pg. 19 – 20)
18
Patient 1
Code Description SOI
PDx I48.91 A-Fib
SDx J90 pleural effusion 3
SDx J18.9 PNA 3
APR DRG 201: Cardiac Arrhythmia & Conduction Disorders
MDC 5: Diseases & Disorders of the Circulatory System
Patient 1
Code Description SOI
PDx I50.9 CHF
SDx J90 pleural effusion
2
SDX J18.9 PNA 3
PPx 0W9B3ZZ Thoracentesis
APR DRG 194: CHF
MDC 5: Diseases & Disorders of the Circulatory System
Age Modification: Secondary Diagnosis SOI Impact
19
Diagnosis Default SOI Criteria Age SOI Impact
Dehydration 1 ≥ 70 y/o 2
ESRD 2 < 18 y/o 3
Hematuria 1 < 1 y/o or ≥ 80 y/o 2
Cellulitis Upper Limb
1 ≥ 65 y/o
2
Age Modification
Comparison of MS DRG to APR DRG
DIAGNOSIS ICD-10 Code
MS DRG APR DRG
Hyponatremia E87.1 CC SOI 2
Hypernatremia E87.0 CC SOI 3
History of pancreas transplant
Z94.83 CC SOI 3
Combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, acute on chronic
I50.43 MCC SOI 3
Acute renal failure N179 CC SOI 3
Pneumonia NOS J189 MCC SOI 3
UTI N390 CC SOI 2
CHF NOS I50.9 Not a CC/MCC SOI 2
Thrombocytopenia D69.6 Not a CC/MCC SOI 2
Diagnoses Potentially Missed • Homelessness Z59.0 (1)
• Kidney transplant status Z94.0 (2)
• Dependence on supplemental oxygen Z99.81 (2)
• Liver transplant status Z94.4 (3)
• Dependence on respirator (ventilator) status Z99.11 (4)
• Colostomy status Z93.3 (1)
• Attention to colostomy Z43.2 (2)
• Nephrostomy status Z93.6 (2)
• Attention to nephrostomy Z43.6 (1)
21
Diagnoses Potentially Missed
• Morbid obesity due to excess calories E66.01 (2)
• Noncompliance with medications in psych patients (e.g. schizophrenia, unspecified Z91.14) (SOI 2 only in PSY PDx)
• Suicidal/Homicidal Ideation R45.851 (2)
• Awaiting organ transplant Z76.82 (3)
• Vitamin Deficiency E56.9 (2)
• Failure to Thrive (adult) R62.7 (2)
• Hypothermia, initial episode T68XXXA (2)
22
Impact of Documentation
23
Documentation
Severity of Illness and
Risk of Mortality
Reimbursement
Medical Necessity and
Length of Stay
Profiling Hospital and Physicians
Present on Admission and HACs
RAC Audits and
Compliance
Clear, complete, timely and accurate documentation has a significant impact on many facets of fiscal and operational data that will continue to increase with
healthcare reform
Hospital Data in the Public Domain
• healthgrades®
• Hospital Compare (CMS.gov)
• American Hospital Directory®
• The Joint Commission, Quality Check®
• The Leapfrog Group
• Truven Health Analytics™
• US News & World Report – Best Hospitals
• Consumer Reports
24
PEPPER Resources • PEPPER – Program for Evaluating Payment Patterns Electronic
Report – PEPPER is an electronic data report that contains statistical
claims data for MS DRGS at risk for improper payment due to billing, coding, and/or medical necessity
– The findings from PEPPER can be used to develop auditing and monitoring action plans
• PEPPER distributed quarterly for Short-term Acute Care Hospital through the Secure PEPPER portal or through QualityNet
• Compare Targets Report – Compares the hospital’s target discharges at the national
and state level – Identifies the hospital’s outlier status as high, low, or into
the expected range
25
Using PEPPER Example of
Target Areas Suggested Interventions for High
Outliers (if at or above 80th percentile)
Suggested Interventions for Low Outliers (if at or below 20th percentile)
Simple Pneumonia
Could indicate coding or billing errors related to DRGs 193 or 194; ensure documentation supports the principal diagnosis
Could indicate that there are coding or billing errors related to under-coding DRGs 193 or 194; consider a sample review of DRGs 177, 178, and 189
Septicemia Could indicate coding or billing errors related to over-coding DRGs 870, 871, or 872; consider a sample review of cases with a principal diagnosis of 038.9 (unspecified septicemia to ensure the documentation supports the principal diagnosis
Could indicate there are coding or billing errors related to under-coding 870, 871, or 872; consider a sample review from other DRGs, such as DRGs 689 and 690
26
Using PEPPER Example of
Target Areas Suggested Interventions for High
Outliers (if at or above 80th percentile)
Suggested Interventions for Low Outliers (if at or below
20th percentile)
Medical DRGs with CC or MCC
Could indicate that there are coding errors or billing errors related to over-coding
Could indicate that there are coding or billing errors related to under-coding
Stroke intracranial hemorrhage
Could indicate potential over-coding. A sample of medical records for DRGs 061, 062, 063, 064, 065, 066 should be reviewed to determine if coding errors exist
Could indicate that there are coding or billing errors related to under-coding of DRGs 061, 062, 063, 064, 065, and 066. A sample of medical records for other DRGs, such as DRGs 067, 068, and 069 should be considered to determine if coding errors exist.
27
Office of Inspector General (OIG) FY 2016 Work Plan • The responsibility of the OIG
– Protect the integrity of Health and Human Service (HHS) programs and the well-being of beneficiaries by detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse
• Outcomes FY 2015 – 4,112 individuals and entities excluded from participation in
Federal health care programs – 925 criminal actions against individuals or entities that engaged
in crimes against HHS programs – 682 civil actions which include false claims and unjust-
enrichment lawsuits filed in Federal district court
• Expected recovery for FY 2015 greater that $3 billion • Estimated savings for FY 2015 approximately $20.6 billion
28
Office of Inspector General
• FY 2016, Examples of OIG Focus – Inpatient claims for mechanical ventilation (still active)
• Review of claims with mechanical ventilation of greater than 96 hours; inappropriate billing identified for patients for patients who received less than 96 hours of mechanical ventilation
– Payments for patients diagnosed with kwashiorkor (still active) • Claims that include the diagnosis of kwashiorkor will be
reviewed to determine if the documentation supports the diagnosis; OIG previously identified inappropriate payment for claims with kwashiorkor
– Medicare payments during MS-DRG payment window (new) • Review of Medicare payments to acute care hospitals to
determine if certain outpatient claims billed to Medicare Part B for services provided during inpatient stays were allowable and in accordance with the IPPS
29
Office of Inspector General
• The Office of Inspector General encourages hospitals to develop and implement compliance programs to protect the organization from fraud and abuse
– Hospitals should conduct regular audits to ensure services are appropriately documented and billed
• Implement an internal data mining process to identify areas of vulnerability
30
POA Indicators • Indicators
Y – Condition was present on admission
N – Condition was NOT present on admission
W – Provider is unable to clinically determine whether condition was present on admission or not
U – Documentation is insufficient to determine if condition is present on admission
E – Diagnosis is exempt from POA reporting
• “W” will be treated the same as “Y” by CMS
• “U” will be treated the same as “N” by CMS
31
Present on Admission Definitions
• Federally defined as present at the time the order for inpatient admission occurs
– Conditions that develop during an outpatient encounter,
including
• Emergency department
• Observation
• Outpatient surgery
– Are considered to be present on admission
• Timing of documentation DOES NOT MATTER
– Physician may document that a diagnosis was present on admission at any time, including discharge summary or post-discharge query
32
Present on Admission Definitions
• A diagnosis is considered to be ‘present on admission’ if
– The condition was diagnosed during the admission, but was clearly present on admission
• Chronic conditions
• Cancer
– The diagnosis was possible, probable, rule out, suspected, differential on admission, and was confirmed at discharge
– The condition developed during an outpatient encounter, such as emergency room, physician office, outpatient surgery or observation
– The signs and symptoms of the condition were clearly present on admission and listed later in the record as a diagnosis
33
Quality Initiatives
• CMS Hospital Quality Programs
– Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) • Chart abstracted measures
• Claims based measures
• Patient reported measures
• Facility reported measures
• Soon to include electronic clinical quality measures
– Value Based Purchasing (VBP) • Chart abstracted measures
• Claims based measures
• Patient reported measures
• Facility reported measures
34
Quality Initiatives • CMS Hospital Quality Programs
– Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP)
• Claims based measures
– Hospital Acquired Conditions (HAC)
• Claims based measures
• Facility reported measures
35
Hospital Acquired Conditions (HACs)
• The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 required the identification of conditions that are
– High cost , high volume, or both
– Result in the assignment of a case to a DRG that has a higher payment when present as a secondary diagnosis
– Could reasonably have been prevented through the application of evidence-based guidelines.
• In FY 2015 the Affordable Care Act required the implementation of imposed financial penalties for hospitals performing poorly regarding HACs
36
Hospital Acquired Conditions (HACs) Domain 1 (15%) • Accidental puncture or laceration • Perioperative pulmonary embolism or DVT • Post-op sepsis • Iatrogenic pneumothorax • Central venous catheter-related blood stream infection • Pressure ulcer – Stage 3 and 4 (or unstageable) • Post-op wound dehiscence • Post-op hip fracture Domain 2 (85%) • CLABSI (central line associated blood stream infection) • CAUTI (catheter associated UTI) • Surgical site infections (SSI) for total hysterectomy and colon surgery • MRSA infection • Clostridium difficile infection
37
Hospital Acquired Conditions (HACs) • The responsibility of the CDS
– Thoroughly review the record to determine if the condition is present on admission
– Thoroughly review the record to determine if the condition is clinically valid
• If clarification is needed, query the physician
– If after review the condition is determined to be hospital acquired, refer the case to the Quality
38
Develop Team Approach • Build alliances and work as a team to achieve successful
outcomes
– Patient Access
– Case Management
– Revenue Cycle
– Denials Management
– Quality Department
COMMUNICATE…COMMUNICATE…COMMUNICATE
39
CDSs and Coders – Partner in Success • Partner with the HIM Coders to achieve successful outcomes
• Participate in HIM quarterly meetings to review Coding Clinics and annual coding updates
• Understand what queries are generated retrospectively and generate the queries concurrently when possible
• Reconcile concurrent worksheets with the final coding
– This should be approached as a learning opportunity
• Develop joint education for CDSs and coders
40
Comprehensive and Holistic Approach for Record Reviews
41
Clinical
Indicators
↓
Diagnosis
Diagnosis
↓
Clinical
Indicators
Present on Admission
(POA)
NO MORE NO LESS
Establish a CDI Steering Committee
• Support from the Leadership Team is essential to the initial and continued success of the CDI Program
• If the program is new or in the process of being “reinvigorated” or if the program is established without a CDI Steering Committee, institute and memorialize specific responsibilities for the CDI Steering Committee
• For new programs, the CDI Steering Committee typically meets every other week and once a month after implementation for the first year and then quarterly
• Once CDI is operationalized within the organization, this committee may stop meeting: – If the CDI Program falters, this committee should be reconvened
42
CDI Steering Committee Members
• Include key leaders from executive management
– CEO – CFO – CMO/VPMA – CIO – Providers (e.g., Hospitalists, Community Providers, Surgeons) – Compliance Officer – CDI Internal Executive Leader – CDI Director/CDI Program Manager – CDI Provider Educators – HIM Director – Coding Manager – Quality Director
43
CDI Steering Committee Responsibilities
• Responsibilities (primary) include
– Obtain and maintain medical staff support – Create a chain of command to manage uncooperative or
recalcitrant providers (e.g. Escalation Policy) – Support the CDI Program financially (especially when new or in
the process of reinvigoration) – Determine key metrics for review at the strategic level
• Review rate, query rate, response rate, impact (SOI/ROM and Case Mix Index)
– Provide feedback to the CDI Operational Committee and Providers • Ensure there is a strategic communication process in place to share
metrics and recognize future challenges
– Guide corrective action when necessary
44
Establish a CDI Operational Committee
• This committee is responsible for the day-to-day operations,
management and support for the CDI program • Meets weekly (if new or in the process of reinvigoration) and
then monthly or quarterly • Committee members may include
– CDI Internal Executive Leader – CDI Director/CDI Program Manager (if different from above) – CDI Provider Educator – Compliance Officer – Directors of HIM, Quality and Case Management – Clinical Documentation Specialist(s) – Coding Supervisor or Coding professionals (dependent on size) – Data Analyst
45
CDI Operational Committee Responsibilities
• Responsibilities (primary) include
– Hire and train staff – Oversee provider and ancillary clinical staff training – Implement and manage day-to-day activities (querying,
record review, one-on-one provider training) – Review program data for tracking and trending – Supervise the design of auditing clinical documentation
functions – Supervise the design of follow-up provider training – Disseminate key metrics to the CDI Steering Committee
46
Physician Champion – Key to CDI
• A Physician Champion/Liaison is paramount to the success of a CDI program
• The Physician Champion should be well known and highly respected by the medical staff
• Other attributes of an “ideal” Physician Champion include – Practice experience in the community – Generalist FP/IM – Utilization background/experience – Past Chief of Medical Staff or Medical Service – History of good documentation practices – Proactive for hospital policy implementation – Non confrontational
47
Physician Champion
• Responsibilities include
– Liaise with CDI staff
– Interacts with the medical staff
– Attends “Kick off” and implementation meeting for CDI (if new or reinvigoration)
– Attends Medical Executive Committee meetings
– Attends meetings of the Committee
– Helps review and/or writes information letters to staff
– Discusses any problem that arises with the documentation process with regard to physician acceptance
– Advocates for the providers’ continued high-quality documentation
48
49
TEAR DOWN THE SILOS AND
WORK AS A TEAM
THANK YOU...QUESTIONS?
• Joni Dion, RHIA, CDIP, CCDS, CPC, CRC – AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer – [email protected] – (614) 256-2341
• Bonnie Peters, CCDS, CDIP, CCS-P, CPC, CRC, COC, CPC-I – AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer – [email protected] – (505) 918-7551
50
References
• “APR-DRGs in the Medicaid Population”, Judy Sturgeon, CCS,
CCDS, For the Record, Vol. 25, No. 5, Pg. 6
http://www.fortherecordmag.com/archives/0313p6.shtml
• “The Evolution of DRGs (Updated)”, American Health Information
Management Association, Journal of AHIMA, April 2010
http://library.ahima.org/xpedio/groups/public/documents/ahima/
bok1_047260.hcsp?dDocName=bok1_047260
• Overview of the 3M™All Patient Refined (APR) DRGS”
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/910941O/ebook-
overview-of-the-3m-apr-drgs-10-
13.pdf?fn=3M_APR_DRG_eBook.pdf
References
• PEPPER Short-term Acute Care Program for Evaluating Payment
Patterns Electronic Report, User’s Guide Nineteenth Edition
https://www.pepperresources.org/
• Office of Inspector General Work Plan Fiscal Year 2016
http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-
publications/archives/workplan/2016/oig-work-plan-2016.pdf