# 1995 vs 1997 documentation guidelines



## dlentschjohnson

I am just starting a new position that includes some auditing. Can anyone give me some advice as to which guidelines are easier to use, 1995 or 1997?


----------



## dclark7

When I audit I use both sets of guidelines.  When reporting results you would use whichever is most advantageous to the provider.

When I teach physicians I use the 1995 guidelines, they're more detailed and I think they provide better documentation, the 95 guidelines are vague as to what is actually required.


----------



## Tonyj

dlentsch said:


> I am just starting a new position that includes some auditing. Can anyone give me some advice as to which guidelines are easier to use, 1995 or 1997?



We use the '95 guidelines which I feel is much more advantageous to our practice. The only time I may use the '97 guidelines is if I'm auditing a specific specialtly which would benefit more from the '97 guidelines.

The only difference between the 2 guidelines is the physical exam. It is easier for most to attain a comprehensive exam using the '95 guidelines (e.g. 8 or more systems=comprehensive)

Whereas with the '97 general multi-system exam comprehensive at least 18 bullets in 9 organ systems i.e. (Perform all elements identified by a bullet in at least nine organ systems or body areas and document at least two elements identified by a bullet from each of nine areas/systems.)

We have neuro services which is when I may utilize the '97 guidelines because it's specialty specific; 22 bullets for comprehensive sytem specific.

You may want to review the PE guidelines to see which works best for your practice.


----------

