Trends in Clinical Documentation, Past, Present, and Future – Part II
EDITOR’S NOTE: This topic has solicited many comments, creating as contentious debate, since Part I was published in the ICD-10monitor e-News on July 17 and discussed the same day on Talk-Ten-Tuesdays.
I want to highlight some of the comments, opinions, and questions shared with me after people listened to Talk-Ten-Tuesdays and/or read Part I of this series. It is important to note that this is not a fight between nurses and coding professionals, but an issue of competency, focusing on whether the necessary qualifications and skills exist.
The big question being asked by many is “why isn’t the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) doing more?” Many members have shared that they feel AHIMA should be actively dealing with the root cause and trying to change the mindset of the industry.
Some suggested that they want AHIMA to be advocating on behalf of their members, and challenging those promoting this notion that health information management (HIM) professionals aren’t qualified to query for clinical validity. HIM professionals have always looked to AHIMA to help push for the advancement of HIM professionals, but it appears that there isn’t the sense of urgency that might be expected when we have HIM professionals being excluded from consideration for positions that we know them to be qualified for – or operating under the same job description as someone with clinical credentials and being paid less than half as much as their counterparts. This is particularly concerning when we look at an Registered Health Information Administrator (RHIA) with a bachelor’s degree being considered less qualified for a clinical documentation improvement (CDI) position than a registered nurse (RN) with an associate’s degree or less experience in the field.
As a HIM professional with CDI credentials, I believe that our association should more forcefully challenge the notion that a professional and educated coder can’t perform “clinical validation.” There are many levels of coding and coding professionals. Some excel in the field of CDI. The notion that a trained coding professional can’t fully function as a clinical documentation specialist (CDS) is false. I also firmly believe that the idea that RNs come to this profession with far better clinical education is not universally true.
An individual professional working as a CDS, whether a nurse, coding professional, or member of some other discipline should have a high capability for cognitive analysis and the ability to use and integrate significant clinical information. It is relevant to acknowledge that educational differences between those holding the Certified Coding Specialist (CCS), RHIA, and Registered Health Information Technician (RHIT) certifications may be significant, and may or may not include formal college credits in anatomy and physiology, clinical pharmacology, and pathophysiology, among other areas. Regardless of background, a successful CDS requires the ability to think critically in order to compliantly use and apply clinical indicators while functioning in the CDI profession. Furthermore, the industry needs to consider the value of all who have earned credentials, such as the Certified Documentation Improvement Practitioner/Certified Clinical Documentation Specialist (CDIP/CCDS) certifications, which were created to demonstrate competency as a CDI professional.
Do the credentials truly demonstrate competency for all? The reality of the situation is that true validation of clinical processes is performed in peer-to-peer fashion, and CDI staff do not perform as “peers” in any portion of the process, regardless of background. CDI staff should know and reference industry-standard, evidence-based definitions as a function of the CDI review process. Final clinical validation requires a physician-to- physician review process and negotiation. Only providers who are licensed to do so can establish a diagnosis. But skillfully and properly trained CDS professionals can and do issue queries for clarification when gaps are identified.
“To me, this isn’t about RN vs. non-RN, or about pointing fingers, but about those of us HIM professionals in a CDI role requesting advocacy and more vocal representation from the organization that we pay to be a member of,” A. Czahor wrote in an email to me. “HIM professionals are being systemically marginalized in many cases, and creating new career pathways in information governance or data analytics doesn’t solve the problem for CDI. If we allow our qualifications to be eroded, or (a scenario in which it is) accepted as fact that a coding professional cannot perform clinical validation because we are not clinicians, where do we draw the line?”
Another comment came from P. Evans, who wrote that “I, and I am certain, many other HIM professionals, have issued ‘clinical validation’ queries effectively and compliantly for years. At the site (encounter) level, I believe that the background of the CDS is not material; what is relevant is that the query be written in a skillful manner and issued with proper context, clinical support and citations, and that compliant choices be offered.”
“HIM professionals have been involved in the process of clarifying physician documentation far longer than the CDI industry has been around, and HIM professionals bring strong, subject-matter expertise to the table that is necessary for success,” he continued. “As a HIM professional in a CDI role, I have at times felt abandoned by my professional organization, AHIMA. When I first wanted to obtain a CDI credential because I was building a program from the ground up at my local facility and wanted to demonstrate my expertise, ACDIS was my only option. AHIMA was late to the party, in my opinion, and I don’t think they’ve really ever demonstrably caught up. Was there some internal decision, not to try to compete with ACDIS?”
Evans also wrote that he is opposed to the notion that HIM professionals are not well-suited for this endeavor. There are some brilliant RNs in this field, but there are also some who are not intellectually equipped to succeed.
“In regard to clinical experience, even within the RN field, a great many RNs who are successful in this profession do not have an abundance of practical clinical experience,” Evans said. “Rather, many RNs work very capably as CDI professionals after working as case managers or data abstractors for decades.”
I am specifically concerned that the AHIMA Publication “Clinical Validation: The Next Level of CDI (December 2016 update)” makes the following statement:
“Clinical validation is an additional process that may be performed along with DRG validation. Clinical validation involves a clinical review of the case to see whether or not the patient truly possesses the conditions that were documented in the medical record. Recovery Auditor clinicians shall review any information necessary to make a prepayment or post-payment claim determination. Clinical validation is performed by a clinician (RN, CMD, or therapist). Clinical validation is beyond the scope of DRG (coding) validation, and the skills of a certified coder. This type of review can only be performed by a clinician or may be performed by a clinician with approved coding credentials.”
This statement has led some to believe that only those with a clinical credential (i.e. RN or MD/DO, etc.) can perform the work of a CDI. It is my opinion that this statement pertains to Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) contractors, not CDI professionals.
It should be noted this statement suggests that clinical validation is beyond the skills of a certified coder, leading one to ask: what precisely are the skills of a certified coder? Who determines this? In my view, there is too much variation in clinical education and awareness among staff working as “coders.” However, it is not fair to make a blanket statement that all coders may lack the clinical acumen and education to participate fully and successfully in all aspects of the CDI function. It should be acknowledged that some “coders,” such as myself and others, have taken and passed clinical screening exams offered by consulting firms, such as JATA and Enjoin, and that the purpose of these exams is specifically to screen for the clinical knowledge purported to be required to work successfully as a CDI professional. It should also be noted that some RNs did not pass clinical screening exams offered by firms such as Nuance and Enjoin, while some “coders” have.
True “clinical validation” requires a peer-to-peer clinical discussion, such as one between physicians. A CDS can and should use queries in a compliant manner in an effort to ensure that the true clinical picture of each patient is documented and coded. A query should be posed when a condition is documented, but additional clinical support, criteria, and/or rationale is desired to ensure that it is clinically supported. However, the CDI function alone does not assure true clinical validation – as is demonstrated by the fact that many clinicians working for third parties repeatedly refuse to accept the clinical criteria compliantly used by hospitals to validate key clinical conditions via the existing query function. If there is some type of universal clinical language that can only be spoken and shared among RNs, the denial process and the ongoing public frustration within the CDI profession with the findings issued by third parties such as Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) speaks against any such notion.
Regarding clinical validation, this is a multistep process, and the first step at the facility level may be a review of documentation for any gaps or discrepancies with issuance of clarification. The clinician should then either modify the documentation by stating that the condition is not confirmed or has been ruled out, or if confirmed, provide additional supporting documentation in the medical record. There are additional steps in the validation process.
The payor may not agree that a diagnosis is supported, based on the evidence in the record. Only providers (not CDI) are responsible for establishing a diagnosis; therefore, the concept that any CDI can perform clinical validation at the site level working as a CDS is false. CDIs who feel that they are acting as part of the healthcare team can be mistaken, and they should not be telling others that they can operate in that capacity.
“I remember a time when it was encouraged to have nurses and physicians on your team because they could speak to the patient care team in a way that coders couldn’t,” Czahor wrote. “AHIMA and ACDIS and others on this thread did a tremendous job of ensuring that everyone had to play by the same rules, regardless of credentials, and all queries, whether verbal or written, should be delivered in a compliant and non-leading manner. This clinical validation interpretation seems to have caused regression, and we’re once again carving out tasks that a nurse or physician can perform differently because of their credentials. I believe we must tackle this issue with the same ferocity that compliant queries were addressed. For example, does this open the door to my clinical validation queries being overturned because they were generated by a coder and not a clinician?”
The American Hospital Association’s (AHA’s) Coding Clinic has cited the same RAC language that I believe reinforced this whole notion, and going by that logic, a nurse or foreign-trained physician working in CDI cannot legitimately assign a working DRG or perform DRG validation, because they are not coders. I worry that just advocating for a multi-disciplinary team may not be enough. That could be misinterpreted as conveying that a multi-disciplinary approach is recommended, because nurses aren’t strong enough coders and coders aren’t strong enough clinically, which is essentially the fallacy against which we are fighting. This clinical validation hot topic isn’t just keeping HIM professionals out of CDI, it’s keeping us out of other emerging roles such as denials management. If clinical validation is beyond the scope of a coder, then some are taking that to mean it’s beyond the scope of a coder to respond to a clinical validation denial. As someone who has personally written more than 1,000 successful RAC appeals for clinical denials, I find this just as troubling. I’ve also built and led a CDI program entirely made up of HIM professionals, and I believe the KPI and outcomes data would demonstrate them to be just as effective and successful as RN-only programs for which I have consulted, as well as multi-disciplinary teams I have managed.
In conclusion, if AHIMA and ACDIS intend to market their respective CDI credentials as relevant marks of accomplishment and distinction, both organizations must be prepared to vigorously defend the legitimacy of these credentials. These were not designed to be earned by and for only RNs, and both require demonstration of clinical knowledge germane to a compliant CDI process.
Since there are professional coders who have these credentials, and RNs that have failed these exams, and if these credentials, both of which require clinical acumen, are to be marketed as worthy, then acquiring them should hold worthiness for all who do so. Otherwise, these credentials have no market value at all.
Having worked in clinical documentation integrity (CDI) in a variety of roles, I have heard a lot of advice when it comes to the timing
Let’s talk about the term “attending physician.” The simplest definition is the physician primarily responsible for a hospitalized patient’s care. While there may be many
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Sepsis sequencing continues to challenge even experienced coding and CDI professionals, with evolving guidelines, documentation gaps, and payer scrutiny driving denials and data inconsistencies. In this webcast, Payal Sinha, MBA, RHIA, CCDS, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS-O, CRC, CRCR, provides clear guideline-based strategies to accurately code sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, assign POA indicators, clarify the relationship between infection and organ dysfunction, and align documentation across teams. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen audit defensibility, improve first-pass accuracy, support appeal success, reduce denials, and ensure accurate quality reporting, empowering organizations to achieve consistent, compliant sepsis coding outcomes.
Expert presenters Kathy Pride, RHIT, CPC, CCS-P, CPMA, and Brandi Russell, RHIA, CCS, COC, CPMA, break down complex fracture care coding rules, walk through correct modifier application (-25, -57, 54, 55), and clarify sequencing for initial and subsequent encounters. Attendees will gain the practical knowledge needed to submit clean claims, ensure compliance, and stay one step ahead of payer audits in 2026.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Join Ronald Hirsch, MD, FACP, CHCQM for The PEPPER Returns – Risk and Opportunity at Your Fingertips, a practical webcast that demystifies the PEPPER and shows you how to turn complex claims data into actionable insights. Dr. Hirsch will explain how to interpret key measures, identify compliance risks, uncover missed revenue opportunities, and understand new updates in the PEPPER, all to help your organization stay ahead of audits and use this powerful data proactively.
Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more
Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
