Last Attempt CCDS-O Questions

RADV (Risk Adjustment Data Validation) is an audit process used to validate that risk-adjusting diagnoses submitted for payment are supported by compliant medical record documentation. A foundational requirement is that the record is properly authenticated by an acceptable provider—meaning the documentation must be attributable to the treating clinician through a valid signature. In compliant documentation standards emphasized in outpatient CDI education, acceptable authentication may be a traditional hand-written signature or an electronic signature/attestation that meets organizational and regulatory policy. Option B is not correct because diagnoses do not have to appear only on a facesheet or “final diagnosis” list; they may be supported within the body of the note (assessment/plan, problem-based charting, or other authenticated sections) as long as they are clearly documented and clinically supported. Options A and D are not reliably true statements in a general RADV context because RADV focuses on diagnoses supported by appropriate provider documentation and acceptable encounter record criteria; “technician-assigned” diagnoses are not acceptable, and radiology documentation alone may not meet all validation expectations depending on the program’s rules and encounter context.

In the outpatient setting, diagnoses documented as uncertain (e.g., “possible,” “probable,” “suspected,” “rule out”) are generally not coded as confirmed conditions; instead, coding is based on confirmed diagnoses or, when not confirmed, the presenting signs/symptoms. Here, the provider documented only “possible Zika,” which is not a confirmed diagnosis for outpatient reporting. Even though the CDI specialist sees a positive serology result, lab data alone does not replace provider diagnostic confirmation in the assessment/plan. The appropriate next step is to query the provider to confirm whether Zika is the established diagnosis based on the positive test (and whether it is clinically addressed during the encounter). If confirmed, Zika can be coded appropriately and sequenced based on the reason for the visit; if not confirmed or still under evaluation, the symptom (fever) remains first-listed. Option B is incorrect because coders do not “code the result” of a serology test as a diagnosis; they code the condition the test supports once clinically confirmed.

In outpatient and physician-office reporting, the diagnosis that best describes the main reason for the visit is reported as thefirst-listed diagnosis. Outpatient coding guidance emphasizes that the “principal diagnosis” concept is primarily an inpatient construct (the condition established after study to be chiefly responsible for admission). In ambulatory encounters, patients are often seen for evaluation, management, follow-up, or symptom assessment, so the coding framework usesfirst-listedto identify the condition, problem, or symptom chiefly responsible for the services provided during that encounter. Co-existing conditions may also be reported when they are addressed or affect care (e.g., monitored, evaluated, assessed/managed, or treated), but they do not replace the requirement to sequence the primary reason for the visit first. Differential diagnoses are not used as the “reason chiefly responsible” in outpatient coding unless a confirmed diagnosis is established; if uncertainty remains, symptoms may be reported instead. Therefore, “first-listed diagnosis” is the correct term for the outpatient setting.

Under CMS-HCC methodology, risk adjustment is driven by ICD-10-CM diagnoses that map to HCC categories and are supported as active conditions addressed at the encounter.CKD stage 3is a classic HCC-qualifying chronic condition because it represents ongoing kidney disease severity and expected resource use, and in this note it is actively assessed with labs reviewed and a nephrology referral. Achronic non-pressure foot ulceris also typically HCC-qualifying when documented as ongoing and requiring management, which is supported here by home care/wound assessment planning. In contrast,“depression”(without specification such as major depressive disorder severity/status) commonly does not qualify for HCC in the way major depressive/bipolar categories do, making it less reliable as a risk-adjusting diagnosis. Likewise,“renal failure”is nonspecific and potentially conflicting with CKD stage 3; CDI best practice would be to clarify acuity/severity (acute kidney injury vs CKD stage vs ESRD) rather than assume “renal failure” as an HCC driver. Therefore, the validated HCC-qualifying pair is CKD 3 and chronic non-pressure ulcer.