Module 05 Coding Audit Worksheet_MM (2)aan

docx

School

Rasmussen College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

Subject

Mechanical Engineering

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CorporalFire11385

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 0TJB8ZZ,OT7D8ZZ . The CPT codes reported were: 52000, 52281 • Identify the error in code assignment (3 points) • Code OTJB8ZZ should not be coded The root operation and cystoscopy for inspection should be coded separately . • 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) • Guidline B3.11A • 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) • Coding incorrectly impact the patient care, can effect the insurance or any payment if the coder coded wrong. 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 correct CPT code for the operation stated in question 2is 68761, which means to Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). The CPT Codes reported were: 68810-50, 68720-50 • Identify the error in code assignment (3 points) • The mistake of CPT codes 68810-50 and 68720-50 are for the operation performed. These codes has different operation that are not unique to a dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR), which was the primary surgery . • 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) • CPT codes 68810-50 and 68720-50 were incorrectly assigned. Bundled procedures and included services within a complte process are coding rules. the codesshould not be reported separtely since they are essential to the primary operation dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) and are not payable independently under coding rules. • 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) • Incorrect coding affects reimbursement, complaince, and coder performance, generating billing difficulties, fines, record errors, and adminstrative disruptions. Procedure note #3 Chief Complaint: Lump, left ear. History, Physical, and Treatment: 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.

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

Diagnosis: Infected abscess, left ear. Incised and drained. The CPT Code reported was: 69000-LT CPT 69000-LT means " Drainage of infection; external ear. " This code appears acceptable for the incision and drainageof the left ear abscess, where liquid occurred, cultures were taken, and the area was irrigated and seal the classification is for external ear infection drainage, which meets the treatment. • Identify the error in code assignment (3 points) • There are no obvious mistakes in the 69000-LT code assigment. • 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 operationn "Drainage of abscess; external ear ; is coded 69000-LT to appropriately indicate the left ear abscess incision and drainage. The code follows the method and does not break any guidelines. • 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) • Coding errors affect reimbursement, compliance, and medical records. Financial impacts, compliance issues, coder accuracy, and patient history misrepresentation may influence future care choices.