The Hidden Pitfalls of Clinical Coding: An Audit Reveals It All
When it comes to healthcare, precision is essential, whether we’re talking about a surgical procedure or documenting patient data. You’d be surprised, though, how often errors occur in a somewhat overlooked aspect of patient care – clinical coding. This crucial component of health administration, as a study by Indu Mitra, Tass Malik, Jarrod J Homer, and Sean Loughran points out, needs some attention.
The Complexity of Clinical Coding
The researchers focused their audit on the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. Within the NHS, operations are coded using the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) classification system. Along with diagnostic codes, these are used to generate Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes. These HRG codes correlate to a payment bracket – essentially deciding how much a hospital gets paid for a specific procedure.
The goal of this study? To determine whether the procedure codes allocated for major head and neck operations were accurate and reflected the work that was done. Additionally, they wanted to see if the HRG codes generated ensured the correct remuneration.
The Audit Uncovered
The team audited the coding of major head and neck operations over a retrospective 3-month period at a tertiary referral centre. Professional hospital coders initially ascribed the procedure codes. Then, a surgical trainee, working with the head of clinical coding, revised the codes.
When they compared the initial and revised procedure codes, the results were surprising. The professional coders initially generated 99 procedure codes, but the revised codes totaled 146. Almost half (47 out of 99) of the original codes were incorrect.
When it came to the HRG codes, in just over half the cases (19 out of 34), the code remained unchanged, resulting in the correct payment. But, in six cases, coding was never completed, which equated to a £15,300 loss of payment.
The Unveiled Truth about Coding in Healthcare
The results of this study spotlight some uncomfortable truths. The existing coding system is complicated, ambiguous, and prone to errors, often leading to lost remuneration. But more than just a system of codes and numbers, these inaccuracies represent an unfair and inconsistent reward system for hospitals.
The study is a call-to-action for healthcare administrators, highlighting the importance of accurate clinical coding. But it’s also a reminder for us all that behind the scenes of patient care, there’s a world of administrative detail that, although often overlooked, plays a crucial role in the operation of our healthcare systems.
In essence, accurate clinical coding is more than just ticking boxes and getting numbers right – it’s about ensuring that hospitals receive the correct payment for their hard work and dedication to patient care. That’s something we can all support.