Q&A: Understanding pneumonia sequencing
Q: Can you please help me determine the query opportunities and code assignment/sequencing argument related to a patient who was admitted with pneumonia, congestive heart failure, acute respiratory failure, and encephalopathy? I thought that the pneumonia would be the primary and the respiratory failure as secondary as the severity of illness/risk of mortality (SOI/ROM) as well as the MS-DRG would all increase. Yet, I'm getting some push back on this train of thought and I'm not sure where the error in my logic may be. Any insight you could offer would be much appreciated.
A: This is an interesting and common question. I believe you are asking why would we choose the acute respiratory failure as the principal diagnosis when, if we choose the pneumonia with a secondary diagnosis of acute respiratory failure, we have an MCC and it would provide both higher reimbursement and SOI/ROM. Coders and CDI specialists were once taught that when two or more competing diagnoses are present on admission and they could choose the one providing the highest relative weight/increased reimbursement.
In our CDI Boot Camp we explore the concerns around code sequencing in depth and part of our in-class discussion challenges that traditional thought a bit and perhaps spurs our students to think about the matters differently. The traditional choice, to simply code the highest weighed MS-DRG as the principal diagnosis, often gets challenged by auditors. Which condition, they rightfully ask, actually occasioned the admission? Does a typical patient with pneumonia require an inpatient admission? Not usually. When will the physician discharge this patient; when the pneumonia is resolved, or when the acute respiratory failure is no longer a concern?
My bet is that the physician will send this patient home on antibiotics (treatment for the pneumonia) so the pneumonia is not exactly resolved on discharge is it?
I recently assisted an organization with two DRG validation denials from recovery auditors. The auditors agreed with all coded diagnoses but argued the sequencing choices involved. One such account was acute systolic heart failure and acute respiratory failure. Their argument was the choice for admission was based on the acute respiratory failure, not the heart failure. I could not defend against that logic. Once the patient was able to breathe without intervention or assistance, she was discharged. She was sent home with adjusted medication for her heart failure continuing and follow up with the cardiologist.
I am not saying you should always sequence one way or another, rather, as a CDI specialist it's your role to closely review the circumstances of admission and carefully consider which conditions meet the definition of principal diagnosis as “That condition after study that occasioned the admission.”
The Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting tells us it should be a rare instance that two or more diagnoses qualify as the principal and we believe this guideline is used much more frequently than it should be.
Lastly, just to throw another log on the proverbial fire, depending on the circumstances in your example perhaps the encephalopathy could be the principal admission. Again it would depend on the circumstances of this patient and the treatment rendered. This example is a great one to discuss with your fellow CDI specialists and coders.
Editor’s Note: Laurie Prescott, RN, MSN, CCDS, CDIP, CRC, answered this question for the ACDIS Blog. Prescott is the CDI Education Director at HCPro in Middleton, Massachusetts. Contact her at lprescott@hcpro.com. For information regarding CDI Boot Camps visit http://hcmarketplace.com/clinical-doc-improvement-boot-camp-1.