CDIP Questions Bank

APR-DRGs are a patient classification system that assigns each inpatient stay to one of more than 300 base APR-DRGs, and then further stratifies each base APR-DRG into four levels of severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM), based on the number, nature, and interaction of complications and comorbidities (CCs) and major CCs (MCCs). SOI reflects the extent of physiologic decompensation or organ system loss of function, while ROM reflects the likelihood of dying. Both SOI and ROM are used to adjust payment rates, quality indicators, and performance measures for hospitals and other healthcare providers.

The CDI manager can gain more information about the potential opportunities for improvement by auditing focused APR-DRGs that have a high impact on SOI/ROM levels, such as those that have a large variation in relative weights across the four severity levels, or those that have a high frequency or volume of cases. The audit can help identify the documentation gaps, inconsistencies, or inaccuracies that may affect the assignment of SOI/ROM levels, such as missing, vague, or conflicting diagnoses, procedures, or clinical indicators. The audit can also help evaluate the CDI team’s performance in terms of query rate, response rate, agreement rate, and accuracy rate. Based on the audit findings, the CDI manager can develop an education plan for both the CDI team and the physicians to address the specific documentation improvement areas and provide feedback and guidance on best practices.

A. Audit cases for missed diagnosis by the CDI practitioner to target in the education plan. This is not the best way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not capture all the factors that affect SOI/ROM levels, such as procedures, clinical indicators, or interactions among diagnoses. It may also focus only on the CDI practitioner’s performance, without considering the physician’s role in documentation quality and completeness.

B. Audit focused cases by physicians that have a higher SOI/ROM for education plan. This is not a valid way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not identify the documentation improvement opportunities for cases that have a lower SOI/ROM than expected, based on their clinical complexity and acuity. It may also create a perception of bias or favoritism among physicians, if only some are selected for audit and education.

C. Audit cases that have high SOI/ROM assigned by coders for education and follow-up. This is not a reliable way to gain more information about the situation, because it may not reflect the true SOI/ROM levels of the cases, if there are errors or discrepancies in coding or grouping. It may also overlook the documentation improvement opportunities for cases that have low SOI/ROM assigned by coders, despite having high clinical complexity and acuity.

References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530
• 3M™ All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR DRGs) | 3M United States
• Q&A: Understanding SOI and ROM in the APR-DRG system | ACDIS
• Use SOI/ROM scores to enhance CDI program effectiveness | ACDIS

A query should include relevant clinical indicators from the health record that support the need for clarification and the query options. Clinical indicators are objective and measurable signs, symptoms, laboratory results, diagnostic test results, medications, treatments, and other documented findings that are related to a specific diagnosis or condition. Information from previous encounters, the impact on quality, and the impact of reimbursement are not appropriate to include in a query, as they may introduce bias, lead the provider, or imply a desired response.

Sharing the mission of the CDI program should be done to ensure a clear sense of what CDI is and the CDI practitioner’s role within the organization. The mission statement defines the purpose, goals, and values of the CDI program, and how it aligns with the organization’s vision and strategy. The mission statement also communicates the benefits and expectations of the CDI program to various stakeholders, such as providers, executives, coders, quality staff, and patients. The mission statement can help establish the credibility, professionalism, and identity of the CDI practitioners, and guide their daily activities and decisions 2.

References: 1: AHIMA CDIP Exam Prep, Fourth Edition, p. 133 3 2: Mission CDI: Guiding goals, values, and principles 1

CMI is a metric that reflects the diversity, complexity, and severity of the patients treated at a healthcare facility, such as a hospital. CMI is used by CMS to determine hospital reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. CMI is calculated by adding up the relative MS-DRG weight for each discharge, and dividing that by the total number of Medicare and Medicaid discharges in a given month and year. Higher CMI values indicate that a hospital has treated a greater number of complex, resource-intensive patients, and the hospital may be reimbursed at a higher rate for those cases.

However, CMI is not the best measure of CDI performance, because it is influenced by many factors beyond CDI efforts, such as patient population, coding accuracy, documentation specificity, patient comorbidities, high volumes of highly weighted DRGs, and annual updates to relative MS-DRG weights. Therefore, measuring CMI over time with a focus on particular documentation improvement areas in addition to the overall CMI can provide a more comprehensive and meaningful assessment of CDI performance. For example, CDI programs can track CMI changes for specific DRGs, clinical conditions, or service lines that are targeted for documentation improvement initiatives. This can help identify the impact of CDI interventions on documentation quality, accuracy, and completeness.

A. Over time with a focus on high relative weight (RW) procedures that impact these procedures on overall CMI. This is not the best way to measure CMI as a metric of CDI performance, because it may not reflect the true complexity and severity of the patients treated at the facility. Focusing only on high RW procedures may overlook other documentation improvement opportunities for lower RW procedures or medical cases that may also affect patient outcomes, quality indicators, and reimbursement.

C. Month-to-month and focus on patient volumes to determine the raise the overall CMI. This is not a valid way to measure CMI as a metric of CDI performance, because patient volumes do not directly affect CMI. CMI is calculated by dividing the total relative weights by the total number of discharges, so increasing patient volumes will not necessarily raise the overall CMI unless the relative weights also increase.

D. Month-to-month to show CMI variability as a barometer of a specific month. This is not a reliable way to measure CMI as a metric of CDI performance, because month-to-month variations in CMI may be due to random fluctuations or seasonal effects that are not related to CDI efforts. Measuring CMI over a longer period of time can provide a more stable and accurate picture of CDI performance.

References:

• CDIP Exam Preparation Guide, 2021 Edition. AHIMA Press. ISBN: 9781584268530
• Case Mix Index (CMI) | Definitive Healthcare
• Q&A: Understanding case mix index | ACDIS