KKRINGLE Module 05 Coding Audit Worksheet 02042024

docx

School

Rasmussen College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1257

Subject

Mechanical Engineering

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperElectron11132

HIM1257 Ambulatory Coding Module 05 Written Assignment - Coding Audit Instructions: Each operative report audit is worth a potential 10 points. Points in parentheses are for each operative report. This assignment is worth a total of 30 points. Read each operative report and review the assigned codes. Identify the error in code assignment (3 points) Identify the coding guideline or instructional note that applies and explain why the code(s) should or should not be reported as listed (3 points) Explain in a few sentences the impact of reporting the code(s) incorrectly. Think about reimbursement, compliance, coder performance, reporting, and any other processes that are affected by coding. (4 points) Operative report #1 PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES: 1. Interstitial cystitis. 2. Urethral stenosis. POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES: 1. Interstitial cystitis. 2. Urethral stenosis. Procedures: 1. Cystoscopy. 2. Urethral dilation and hydrodilation. Description of Procedure: Urethra was tight at 26-French and dilated with 32-French. Bladder neck is normal. Ureteral orifice is normal size, shape and position, effluxing clear bilaterally. Bladder mucosa is normal. Bladder capacity is 700 mL under anesthesia. There is moderate glomerulation consistent with interstitial cystitis at the end of hydrodilation. Residual urine was 150 mL.

The patient was brought to the cystoscopy suite and placed on the table in lithotomy position. The patient was prepped and draped in the usual sterile fashion. A 21 Olympus cystoscope was inserted and the bladder was viewed with 12- and 70-degree lenses. Bladder was filled by gravity to capacity, emptied and again cystoscopy was performed with findings as above. Urethra was then calibrated with 32-French. The patient was taken to the recovery room in stable condition. The CPT codes reported were: 52000, 52281 1. Identify the error in code assignment (3 points) The error in code assignment is that only one code (52000) was reported for both the cystoscopy and urethral dilation and hydrodilation procedures. 2. Identify the instructional note or coding guideline that applies and explain why the code(s) should or should not be reported as listed (3 points) The correct coding guideline here is that each distinct procedure should be reported separately. In this case, cystoscopy (52000) and urethral dilation and hydrodilation (52281) are two separate and distinct procedures, each with its own CPT code. Therefore, both codes should be reported 3. Explain in a few sentences the impact of reporting the code(s) incorrectly. Think about reimbursement, compliance, coder performance, reporting, and any other processes that are affected by coding. (4 points) Reporting only one code instead of two may lead to underbilling for the services provided, potentially affecting reimbursement negatively. It also impacts compliance with coding guidelines, as accurate reporting is crucial for medical coding. Coder performance may be evaluated based on accuracy, and reporting incorrect codes can lead to a decline in performance ratings. Additionally, incorrect coding may result in inaccurate reporting of procedure statistics and affect healthcare data analysis. Operative report #2 PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Right nasal lacrimal duct obstruction. POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Same. PROCEDURE: Right dacryocystorhinostomy. INDICATIONS: The patient is a 42-year-old lady with the chronic epiphora from the right eye. This has been worked up by the Ophthalmology Dept. and the diagnosis of functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction was made. A dacryocystorhinostomy was indicated.

DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE: After general endotracheal anesthesia was established, the patient's face was prepped and draped in a sterile field. A curvilinear incision was made at the right medial canthus. This was deepened down to the nasal bone. Then using a Freer elevator, the periosteum was reflected laterally exposing the lacrimal fossa and posterior aspect of the lacrimal sac. Using a burr, a 1 cm. opening was made in the lateral nasal bone obliterating also the lacrimal crest. The nose had previously been packed with cocaine soaked cottonoids. An opening was then made in the nasal mucosa. The puncta were then dilated with a series of lacrimal probes. With a probe in place through the lower punctum, the back wall of the lacrimal sac was opened. The contents of the sac were clear. There was no evidence of tumor in the sac. The opening in the sac was then enlarged and Quickert-Dreyden tubes were passed through both puncta through the opening into the nose. The tubes were then tied within the nose with a silk suture and cut short and allowed to retract in the nose. The skin incision was then closed with running 6-0 nylon suture. Bleeding throughout the procedure was controlled with bipolar cautery. A corneal shield was placed during the procedure to protect the globe. The patient tolerated this procedure well. Blood loss was negligible. She was taken to the recovery room in good condition. The CPT Codes reported were: 68810-50, 68720-50 1. Identify the error in code assignment (3 points) The error in code assignment is the use of modifier -50 with both CPT codes (68810-50, 68720- 50). 2. Identify the instructional note or coding guideline that applies and explain why the code(s) should or should not be reported as listed (3 points) The use of modifier -50 for bilateral procedures is incorrect in this case because the procedures performed (dacryocystorhinostomy) are inherently bilateral. The modifier -50 is not applicable for inherently bilateral procedures, and each component of the procedure should be reported without the modifier. 3. Explain in a few sentences the impact of reporting the code(s) incorrectly. Think about reimbursement, compliance, coder performance, reporting, and any other processes that are affected by coding. (4 points) The incorrect use of modifier -50 may result in overbilling for the procedures. This can lead to reimbursement issues and compliance concerns. Inaccurate reporting can also affect statistical data and analysis, potentially impacting healthcare resource allocation. Additionally, it may prompt audits and investigations into coding practices, affecting overall compliance and coder performance Procedure note #3 Chief Complaint: Lump, left ear. History, Physical, and Treatment:

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

This 20-year-old male notes a lump which has developed anterior to his left ear over the last week. It is painful to him. Denies fever or chills. States he had a problem similar to this in the past. Inspection of the ear area reveals a 2 cm size lump just in the pre-auricular area of the external ear. It is tender to palpation, it is fluctuant. No cellulitis or erythema is present. Area was cleansed, local infiltration with 1% Xylocaine for anesthesia was performed. Area was incised with a #11 blade. A large amount of purulent material was expressed. Samples taken for culture and sensitivity. Loculations were broken up. Incision was irrigated and Iodoform was packed. Bandaid applied. The patient also complained of pain in the left ear. Impacted cerumen was noted. This was removed with a cerumen spoon without difficulty. Routine ear wash was advised. Patient is to return tomorrow for removal of packing. Diagnosis: Infected abscess, left ear. Incised and drained. The CPT Code reported was: 69000-LT 1. Identify the error in code assignment (3 points) The error in code assignment is the use of modifier -LT with the CPT code 69000-LT. 2. Identify the instructional note or coding guideline that applies and explain why the code(s) should or should not be reported as listed (3 points) Modifier -LT is used to indicate procedures performed on the left side, but for a single incision and drainage procedure, the use of -LT is unnecessary. Modifier -LT is typically used when there are separate procedures performed on the left and right sides of the body. 3. Explain in a few sentences the impact of reporting the code(s) incorrectly. Think about reimbursement, compliance, coder performance, reporting, and any other processes that are affected by coding. (4 points) The incorrect use of modifier -LT may not have a significant impact on reimbursement in this case, as it is unlikely to change the overall payment for the procedure. However, it contributes to inaccurate coding practices and may affect data analysis. Compliance with coding guidelines is essential, and such errors can be flagged during audits, impacting overall coder performance and adherence to coding standards.