The goal should be a 100 percent response rate.
On a recent onsite, one of the clinical documentation integrity specialists (CDISs) asked me my opinion on how assiduous a clinical documentation integrity (CDI) professional should be to get a query answered. My response may surprise some of you.
I must preface my answer with the assertion that the goal should be to have a 100 percent response rate. I cannot understand the concept of a provider being asked a question in the clinical setting and refusing to answer. I also don’t get not making the effort to comprehend the question being posed so that one could make an informed decision.
Aiming for an 85 percent response rate means you are willing to leave 15 percent of your queries unanswered. Are you really willing to leave 15 percent of your queries unanswered? Then why did you compose them? If they were worthy of generation, they deserve to be answered and closed.
When I worked as a physician advisor in a large multi-hospital system, one of the smaller community hospitals had a large-volume admitter who elicited the lion’s share of queries. The CDIS had a standing appointment with his office for Friday afternoon and the provider would passive-aggressively make her wait in his waiting room for an inordinate amount of time before he would deign to meet with her. Sometimes she would wait, and he would ghost her. For those of you who do not know anyone in the dating world right now, ghosting means someone just doesn’t show up. They don’t text or call to cancel, they just don’t show.
That was his system. CDISs used to have to phone or text some providers and fax queries to others. They would email and send multiple reminder emails. They would track the providers down in the hallways. When we obtained an electronic CDI query system, some of them would use that.
I’d ask the CDISs why they had so many different processes, and their answer was, “Whatever it takes!”
Admirable, but unacceptable.
My surprising response is that the organization should develop a standard system for queries that fits into the providers’ workflow and stick with it. You can’t establish the procedure without practitioner input, but I oppose setting up differing systems for individual providers. The solution to a provider who doesn’t utilize the hospital email system or the inbox of the electronic health record (EHR) is to mandate utilization of the hospital email system or the inbox of the EHR. The medical administration needs to hold the providers accountable.
Most institutions have a medical records completion policy which includes repercussions like suspension for failure to comply in a timely fashion, say within 14 or 30 days. Queries are part of the medical record.
What we in CDI do is important and valuable to the provider and the system. Providers are not doing us a favor by answering our queries; we are, in essence, doing them a favor by sifting through their suboptimal documentation, finding opportunities, and presenting them for improvement, so that they get credit for taking care of as sick and complex patients as they do. The administration needs to facilitate the process and encourage cooperation. The provider and hospital’s quality metrics and financial viability may very well depend on it.
Program Note:
Listen to Dr. Erica Remer report this subject live today on Talk Ten Tuesdays, 10-10:30 a.m. EST.
As discussed last week, payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are adjusted to account for expected healthcare resource consumption by enrollees. Higher risk scores increase
Clinical documentation integrity (CDI) professionals work in a variety of settings, and although I mostly focus on topics related to hospital inpatient billing, this week
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
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.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
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.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
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. 2 with code CYBER24
