Remember, “do no harm.”
We are all aware of efforts in the healthcare system devoted toward reducing length of stay, but when does that metric interfere with quality of patient care and subsequent results? There are several areas where we see this phenomenon.
Let’s start with the beginning, and that is in the emergency room, often referred to as “throughput.” The goal is to get the patient’s disposition set and completed in as little time as possible, door-to-door, if you will.
The goal behind this most times is to improve patient satisfaction or experience, which is a measurement in value-based purchasing (VBP) and influences hospital-based incentives. This is gauged by HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems), a survey.
Sometimes, in order to improve results, ED physicians are incentivized by making this a metric for bonuses. We have all seen how this may actually adversely affect patient quality of care.
There are other areas where reducing length of stay can have an adverse effect on the quality of care provided, but the focus remains on getting patients out of the hospital. There is a fine line between reducing length of stay and not increasing readmissions.
Also, other metrics are measured in value-based purchasing, scrutinized by Medicare and other variations in the commercial payor world. Most of the time, it all works well, but the fallout of those times when it doesn’t can have grave consequences on patients’ morbidity and even mortality – which ironically can become another negative metric, along with readmission rates, mortality rates, hospital-acquired conditions, conditions present on admission, “never events,” and more.
What inspired this report is a true experience of a family member of mine that is not unique, but exemplifies the problem. This family member was recuperating from a rather severe episode of COVID, resulting in fatigue and deconditioning in someone already challenged with diabetes, walking issues, knee and back problems, and osteoporosis.
At home, physical therapy was helping until she fell and suffered an angulated lower leg fracture of the tibia and fibula. Here is where it all started. She underwent surgery, with pinning and casting of the fractures and she was discharged on the second day with a temperature of undetermined etiology to a facility for rehabilitation.
The temperature elevation continued, leading to altered mental status within less than 24 hours of arrival, requiring sending her back to the hospital – reluctantly, on the part of the rehab hospital. In addition, the hospital did not want to admit her even to observation until strongly encouraged by a family member (who by the way is an ED, and previously an ICU nurse).
The reasons behind the reluctance on their part is unclear, but one wonders if it had anything to do with a rather quick readmission for a patient who should have never been discharged so quickly when unstable.
In summary, we have a couple of scenarios that are reflections of decreasing length of stay resulting in significant quality issues:
In conclusion, metric-driven incentives may not have the best results. What happened to “first, do no harm?”
Programming note: Listen to Dr. Zelem’s ongoing series called, “Journaling John MD,” Tuesdays on Talk Ten Tuesdays at 10 a.m. Eastern.
Hospitals are about to hit a perfect storm of two powerful climate conditions set both hit in 2026; the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)
Among the many responsibilities of hospital case managers, none is more critical or more impactful than the initial discharge planning evaluation. Often referred to as
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.
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.
RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.
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
