ED Coding and Reimbursement Alert

Shortcuts can help -- but beware of these audit pitfalls. 

Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) cut both ways for reimbursement chart documentation. They can make documenting a comprehensive H&P easier, but they can also get you into trouble if you don’t follow the rules.  Check out these expert tips on EHR attestations to make the best of both these possibilities.

First the bad news: Frequently  ED physicians, and their patients,  complain that more of the patient encounter is spent facing the computer screen than the patient in the room, says, Todd Thomas, CPC, CCS-P of ERcoder, Inc in Edmond, OK. He often hears of his clients’ frustrations with their facilities’ EMR functionality and the number of clicks it takes to complete the medical record. ICD-10 implementation has made this even more challenging for some.  To maintain good throughput time without sacrificing either patient satisfaction scores or RVU generation, many physicians are looking for ways to streamline the process of documenting their patient encounters, says Thomas. 

Solution:  Attestation statements can be used to appropriately document elements of a patient encounter, provided they are used in suitable situations and worded correctly. 

Those Don’t Learn History Attestations Are Doomed to Repeatedly Enter It

Take a look at these E/M code documentation requirements and Thomas’ advice on how attestation statements can help expedite the process: 

History - If the physician is unable to obtain a history from the patient or other source, the record should describe the patient’s condition / circumstance, which precludes obtaining a history.

• Unable to obtain a history due to patient’s chronic dementia.

History of Present Illness – E/M rules, the 95 Documentation Guidelines, require the EDMD to perform and document the HPI.  An attestation, reviewing for instance the nurse’s notes, cannot be used in the place of the physician documentation of the HPI.  There are exceptions when the HPI is documented by a resident or a scribe (see below).

Review of Systems -   There are several ROS scenarios that would lend themselves to using an attestation.

• A ROS from an earlier encounter does not need to be re-recorded if there is evidence that the physician reviewed and/or updated the previous information. The attestation could include the date and location of reviewed ROS. 

­                ­– ROS is unchanged from the 12/16/16 ED visit. 

• The ROS can be recorded by ancillary staff.  There must be a notation supplementing and/or confirming the ROS recorded by others.

­                – I have reviewed and confirmed the ROS documented by the triage nurse.

• The ROS can be recorded on a form completed by the patient.  There must be a notation supplementing and/or confirming that the EDMD has reviewed this information.

­                – I have reviewed and agree with the ROS as documented on the health history form.

• Systems with positive or pertinent negative responses must be individually documented.  For the remaining systems, a notation indicating all other systems are negative is permissible. 

­                – Except as documented, all other systems reviewed and negative.

Past, Family & Social History - There are also multiple PFSH scenarios that would support using an attestation.

• The PFSH can be recorded by ancillary staff.  There must be a notation supplementing and/or confirming the PFSH recorded by others.

­                – I have reviewed and confirmed the Past, Family and Social is documented in the nursing notes.

• The PFSH can be recorded on a form completed by the patient.  There must be a notation supplementing and/or confirming that the EDMD has reviewed this information.

­                – I have reviewed and agree with the PFSH as documented in the patient’s intake form.

Examination - The physical exam must be performed and documented by the EDMD.  The only element of the exam that would lend itself to an attestation is the patient’s vital signs, which may be measured and recorded by ancillary staff.

­                – Vital signs reviewed, see nurse’s flow sheet.

Medical Decision Making - The MDM refers to the complexity of establishing a diagnosis and/or selecting management options.  These complexities can be difficult to capture with an attestation, since every patient and presenting problem has its own idiosyncrasies. 

There is a point system for scoring MDM and some of the subcomponents of the MDM scoring for the data element could be captured with a mini-attestation.

­                – “old records requested”
                – “discussed films with radiologist”
                – “per my independent interpretation” for EKG and x-ray findings

Cautionary note: Keep in mind that, increasingly, auditors are looking for case specific clinical information to justify the medical necessity for the services reported. A string of minimally acceptable attestations may not paint an adequate picture of the patient’s condition.

Residents, Scribes and NPPS Require Carefully Worded Attestations To Remain Compliant

There are other common ED scenarios that could incorporate an attestation in the ED documentation:  those involving a provider other than the reporting physician or a scribe, says Thomas.

Teaching Physicians / Residents – Reporting E/M services, procedures and diagnostic interpretations are three common coding issues that could be addressed with an attestation.

E/M services billed by teaching physicians require that the teaching physician personally document at least the following:

a. That they performed the service or were physically present during the key or critical portions of the service when performed by the resident; and
b. The participation of the teaching physician in the management of the patient.

CMS has published examples of Teaching Physician attestations that they feel comply with these requirements, notes Thomas.  They have released attestations for several scenarios, but two of them are the most common to the emergency department:

• Scenario 1 - Resident performs E/M service in the presence of the teaching physician and the resident documents the service. The teaching physician must document that they were present during the performance of the critical or key portions of the service and that they were directly involved in the management of the patient. The teaching physician’s note should reference the resident’s note.

­                – I was present with the resident during the history and exam. I discussed the case with the resident and agree with the findings and plan as documented in the resident’s note.

• Scenario 2 - Resident performs E/M service in the absence of the teaching physician and documents the service. The teaching physician must independently perform the critical or key portions of the service and, as appropriate, discusses the case with the resident. The teaching physician must document that they personally saw the patient and performed critical or key portions of the service, and participated in the management of the patient. The teaching physician’s note should reference the resident’s note.

­                – I saw and evaluated the patient. Discussed with the resident and agree with resident’s findings and plan as documented in the resident’s note.

Procedures performed by residents have a separate set of requirements that would involve an additional attestation from the supervising teaching physician.

• For minor procedures that take only a few minutes (five minutes or less) to complete the teaching surgeon must be present for the entire procedure in order to bill for the procedure.

­                –  I was at the bedside and provided personal supervision, while the resident performed the procedure.

• For procedures lasting longer than five minutes, the teaching physician must be present during all critical and key portions of the procedure and be immediately available to furnish services during the entire procedure.

­                – I was present for the critical/key portions of the procedure performed by the resident.

Diagnostic Interpretations performed by a resident add the need for an additional teaching physician attestation.  If a resident prepares and signs an interpretation, the teaching physician has personally reviewed the image and the resident’s interpretation and either agrees with it or edits the findings or it is not a billable service.

­                – I have reviewed the EKG tracing and agree with the resident’s interpretation.

Scribes in the ED: As emergency departments transition to EMRs, many are turning to the use of scribes to expedite what can be a time-consuming documentation process. There should be two attestations in every chart involving a scribe, one from the scribe and one from the physician.

The scribe’s attestation should include:

• The name and signature of the scribe.
• The name of the provider providing the service.

­                – Record created by John Jones , acting as scribe for Dr. Lee

The provider’s attestation should include:

• Confirmation the provider personally performed the services documented.
• Indication that he/she reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of the information in the medical record.

­                – I have reviewed the documentation recorded by the scribe and it accurately reflects the service I personally performed and the decisions I have made.

Follow The Rules! Attestations Can Help, But They Are Also a Common Audit Target

While the use of attestations in the emergency chart may have helped physicians decrease their time in front of the computer screen, it has also added some real compliance issues that have been problematic in payer audits. Be mindful of these caveats, warns Thomas.

A frequent target in recent payer audits has been the use of generic attestations to support billing the services of Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners as shared E/M services in the name of the physician, Thomas advises.  CMS payers have been clear that a generic attestation will not suffice as the sole documentation to support a shared service. 

Be specific: To qualify as a shared visit, the physician must have a face to face encounter with the patient, and they have to document some portion of the history, exam or medical decision components to be considered a shared service.  One CMS carrier gives the following as an unacceptable shared service attestation.

­                – “I have personally seen and examined the patient independently, reviewed the PA’s Hx, exam and MDM and agree with the assessment and plan as written”

An acceptable physician attestation to support a shared service should include patient specific information from the physician encounter, says Thomas.

Resist The Temptation to Just Click Your Way Through The EMR

As with any medical record documentation, accuracy is paramount.  Any documentation in the ED chart that will cause an auditor to doubt the truthfulness of the physician’s notes will make it difficult for the auditor to support the physician with payer, says Thomas.  Physicians can get accustomed to “clicking the box” for the attestations and end up with a chart that includes incorrect or confusing information, he adds.

Anything You Click Can And Will be Used Against You

The inappropriate use of attestations can lead to trouble. Thomas offers the following examples of audit situations where inappropriate attestation statements jeopardize the credibility of the entire chart:

• Unable to obtain a history due to patient’s chronic dementia.
• Documented in conjunction with the statement “alert and oriented X 3”ROS is unchanged from the 12/16/15 ED visit.

­                – Chart for 12/16 visit not sent to payer, chart downcoded due to insufficient ROS.

• I have reviewed and agree with the ROS as documented on the health history form.

 ­               – Health history form was blank.

• Except as documented, all other systems reviewed and negative.

­                – Documented on a chart for a patient that presented for a straightforward suture removal.

• I have reviewed and agree with the Past, Family and Social documented in the nursing notes.

­                – Nurse’s notes did not include family or social history. Chart downcoded from 99285 to 99284.

• I was present with the resident during the history and exam. I discussed the case with the resident and agree with the findings and plan as documented in the resident’s note.

­                – No resident involved in case.

• ­I was at bedside while the resident performed the procedure.

­                – No procedure during encounter.

• ­I have reviewed the EKG tracing and agree with the resident’s interpretation.

­                Patient presented with corneal abrasion. No EKG performed.

• ­I have reviewed the documentation recorded by the scribe and it accurately reflects the service I personally performed and the decisions I have made.

­                – Scribe entered visit on wrong patient. This chart contained only nurse’s notes and physician attestation.

Bottom line: Attestations can help shorten the documentation time and allow physicians to be more efficient; however, care must be taken to ensure that the attestation accurately reflects the patient encounter.  If the attestation statement isn’t accurate, the codes and service reported may not be either, and that can lead to major compliance problems, warns Thomas.