# Presentation: 368331

## Day 1: Session IIIImplications of ICD-9-CM Coding Rules for Measuring QIs

**Presenters: Patrick Romano, UC Davis**
**Rita Scichilone, American Health Information Management Association**
**AHRQ QI User Meeting**
**September 26-27, 2005**

## Overview

- Topics
- ICD-9-CM coding practices
- Coding and indicator development
- ICD-9-CM coding resources
- Questions and answers

## Overview

- The AHRQ Quality Indicators are based on commonly available administrative data.
- Administrative data are primarily used for billing, but also for other business and financial planning purposes.
- There is a basic tension between using the data for reimbursement and for defining quality indicators
- Submitting bills quickly versus coding from a complete record
- Maximizing the coding of complications and comorbidities versus only coding diagnoses “out of the norm.”

## Overview

- Variation in QI rates might be due to variation in:
- Data availability (e.g., number of diagnosis codes, admission type, condition present on admission, E-codes)
*Documentation (ICD-9-CM and DRG coding)*
- Performance (e.g., processes of care, staffing)
- Documentation impacts both the implementation and development of the QI
- Two questions we address here:
- What are the sources of variation in coding practices that might impact documentation and therefore the QI rates?
- How does the design of codes impact indicator development?

## ICD-9-CM Coding

- Adherence to best practices in coding and compliance with coding guidelines will ensure fair reimbursement and accurate measurement of quality indicators
- Highest level of specificity
- Overuse of NEC and NOS designation
- Coding the general and specific
- Use of 997.xx codes without use of additional code to identify specific complication
- Coding of secondary diagnoses
- Only codes that impact treatment or complications
- Coding of E-codes
- Coding of procedures
- Only significant procedures to be reported

## ICD-9-CM Coding: Specificity

- Highest level of specificity
- Overuse of NEC and NOS designation
- Examples:
- Using 586 (renal failure NOS) instead of 584.x (acute renal failure) excludes case from denominator of PSI 3 (failure to rescue) and numerator of PSI 10 (postop physiologic/ metabolic derangement).
- Using 531.90 (gastric ulcer, unspec acute/chronic w/out hemorrhage or perforation) instead of 531.70 (gastric ulcer, chronic w/out hemorrhage or perforation) eliminates comorbidity credit in risk-adjustment of PSIs.

## ICD-9-CM Coding: Multiple coding

- Coding the general and specific
- Use of 997.xx codes without additional code to identify specific complication
- Examples:
- Use 451 or 453 code with 997.2 to describe postop DVT.
- Use 415.1x code with 997.3 to describe postop PE, or 518.81 with 997.3 to describe postop respiratory failure
- Use 584 code with 997.5 to describe postop renal failure (physiologic/metabolic derangements)

## ICD-9-CM Coding: Avoid overcoding

- Coding of secondary diagnoses
- Assign codes only for conditions that impact evaluation or treatment
- For reporting purposes the definition for "other diagnoses" is interpreted as additional conditions that affect patient care in terms of requiring:
- 	clinical evaluation; or
- 	therapeutic treatment; or
- 	diagnostic procedures; or
- 	extended length of hospital stay; or
- 	increased nursing care and/or monitoring.
- UHDDS...defines Other Diagnoses 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.  Diagnoses that relate to an earlier episode which have no bearing on the current hospital stay are to be excluded.”

## ICD-9-CM Coding: Avoid overcoding

- Coding of secondary diagnoses
- “Abnormal findings (laboratory, x-ray, pathologic, and other diagnostic results) are not coded and reported unless the physician indicates their clinical significance.”
- “If the findings are outside the normal range and the physician has ordered other tests to evaluate the condition or prescribed treatment, it is appropriate to ask the physician whether the abnormal finding should be added.”
- “All conditions that occur following surgery...are not complications... there must be more than a routinely expected condition or occurrence... there must be a cause-and-effect relationship between the care provided and the condition...”

## A case study of birth traumaDallas-Fort Worth Hospital Council

## Confusion about coding

- 767.3 Other Injuries To Skeleton Due To Birth Trauma Fracture of: long bones, skull767.4 Injury To Spine And Spinal Cord Due To Birth Trauma{Dislocation} {Fracture} {Laceration} {Rupture} of spine or spinal cord due to birth trauma

**ICD-9-CM Coding Manual Definition**

**Code Index under “Molding, head”**
**lists 767.3**

## ICD-9-CM Coding: Procedures

- Coding of E-codes
- 	“External causes of injury and poisoning codes (E codes) are intended to provide data for injury research and evaluation of injury prevention strategies.  E codes capture how the injury or poisoning happened (cause), the intent (unintentional or accidental; or intentional, such as suicide or assault), and the place where the event occurred.”

## Slide 13

## Slide 14

## Slide 15

## ICD-9-CM Coding: Procedures

- Coding of procedures
- 	“The UHDDS requires all significant procedures to be reported... A significant procedure is defined as one that meets any of the following conditions:
- 	Is surgical in nature
- 	Carries an anesthetic risk
- 	Carries a procedural risk
- 	Requires specialized training.”
- 	What about central venous catheters?

## Indicator Development

- How the design of ICD-9-CM codes influences indicator development
- Specificity vs. sensitivity in defining condition of interest (e.g., wastebasket codes)
- Codes may not keep up with clinical terminology
- Annual coding updates and desire to allow trend analysis over time
- Coding specificity varies across chapters
- Special pregnancy-related and neonatal codes

## Ongoing validation through use

- Quality Problem

**Quality Indicator ****Triggers Concern ****(Health System Symptom)**

- Data
- Problem

- _Differential diagnosis_
- Data issue?
- Health care quality deficiency?
- Indicator limitation?

- _Treatment_
- Correct data
- Implement quality improvements
- Revise indicator definitions

## Examples of user input

## ICD-9-CM Coding

- Adherence to coding “best practices”
- Physician documentation
- Clinical terminology versus ICD-9-CM terminology (for example, sepsis)
- Culture and processes to query physicians for additional information and clarification
- Concurrent “real-time” coding practices to improve access to physicians
- Physician “peer review” for adverse events
- Documentation improvement program
- Coding tools
- Standard forms: Hollister Initial Newborn Profile
- Coding clinic on desktop
- Electronic coding assistance (e.g., Wincoder, Quantim, Codefinder, WinStrat/WebStrat)

## ICD-9-CM Coding

- Adherence to coding “best practices” (continued)
- Training
- AHIMA Resources and Practice Briefs
- Credentialing
- Continuing education
- Clinical AND coding training
- Self-study question list
- Variation in staff coding expertise and productivity
- By payer: Medicare vs. non-Medicare
- By unit: Medical/Surgical vs. OB/pediatrics
- Productivity expectations (e.g., 4 charts per hour)

## ICD-9-CM Coding

- Self-Study question list for coded data quality
- Do you require individuals assigning codes to be credentialed? (bound by a professional code of ethics –competency demonstrated )
- Do you provide adequate continuing education for coding professionals?
- Do you have a Coding Compliance policy document?
- If so, is it operational?
- Does it include ongoing reviews for code assignment accuracy?
- Do coders have access to  physicians for clarification or questions when required for complete code assignment?
- When coding variances are identified is action taken to correct?

## Coding Resources

- American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA)
- _[www.ahima.org](http://www.ahima.org/)_
- American Hospital Association
- _[www.hospitalconnect.com/ahacentraloffice/ahaco/index.jsp](http://www.hospitalconnect.com/ahacentraloffice/ahaco/index.jsp)_
- National Center for Health Statistics
- _[www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd9.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd9.htm)_
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
- _[www.cms.gov](http://www.cms.gov/)_
- AHIMA Resources and Practice Briefs
- _[www.ahima.org/infocenter/practice_tools.asp](http://www.ahima.org/infocenter/practice_tools.asp)_
- Developing a Coding Compliance Policy Document
- Developing a Physician Query Process
- Ongoing Coding Reviews: Ways to Ensure Quality
- HIM’s Role in Monitoring Patient Safety
- Internet Resources for Coding and Reimbursement Practices

## More Information on AHRQ QIs

- Quality Indicators Technical Assistance:
- E-mail: _[support@qualityindicators.ahrq.gov](mailto:support@qualityindicators.ahrq.gov)_
- Website: _[http://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/](http://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/)_
- Telephone:
- 	(888) 512-6090 (voice mail)

## Acknowledgments

- Training Module Development:
- Patrick Romano, UC Davis
- Rita Scichilone, AHIMA
- Kathy McDonald, Stanford University
- Sheryl Davies, Stanford University
- Jeffrey Geppert, Battelle Health and Life Sciences
- Support for Quality Indicators II (Contract No. 290-04-0020):
- Mamatha Pancholi, AHRQ Project Officer
- Marybeth Farquhar, AHRQ
- Mark Gritz and Jeffrey Geppert, Project Directors, Battelle Health and Life Sciences

## Questions?