The new edit, review and audit solutions within the 3M Inpatient Prebill Review module enable actionable custom edits to identify errors at the point of coding, as part of the coder’s workflow. These custom edits were developed to specifically address the coding errors identified by the University of Utah Health coding and auditing management team. Coding errors are resolved within the coding workflow rather than placed on an additional hold, or worked on further downstream in the revenue cycle, which facilitates better coding accuracy.
In addition to the actionable custom edits, 3M Inpatient Prebill Review prompts specific criteria to a second level review for additional analysis. According to Nancy Blattberg-Smith, MPH, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, manager of data integrity at University of Utah Health, “ultimately the additional review could eliminate rebills and enable coders and auditors to work together and provide quicker and more timely feedback.”
The second level review process allows the auditors to take a deeper look at their mortality review gains and losses, identifying net dollar changes that could affect the facility’s revenue stream.
In addition to using actionable custom edits and second level reviews as part of the prospective coding accuracy process, University of Utah Health also integrated 3M Code Audit for retrospective reviews. Retrospective audits are completed within the 3M™ 360 Encompass™ System, referencing the codes and the documentation used to create the patient record and removing the manual methods required to create randomized audits previously managed via email.
3M Code Audit provides a more efficient way to initiate retrospective audits, review the code set, provide two way communication and agreement between the coder and the auditor, and operationalize the overall process. The retrospective audit process also provides insight into coding errors and challenges. This helps direct targeted education and potential new custom edits and review opportunities that can be added to the prebill process– all within a single platform.
Results, outcomes and/or financial improvements should not be interpreted as a guarantee or warranty of similar results. Individual results vary depending on circumstances.
Ultimately the additional review could eliminate rebills and enable coders and auditors to work together and provide quicker and more timely feedback.
Nancy Blattberg-Smith
MPH, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, manager of data integrity, University of Utah Health