Tip: Audit records for signature documentation
CDI Strategies, September 2, 2010
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to CDI Strategies!
CMS requires that orders for healthcare services be authenticated using either a handwritten or electronic signature. CMS has made it clear that stamped signatures are not an acceptable form of authentication and previous language in the CMS Program Integrity Manual required a “legible identifier.”
Earlier this year, however, CMS Transmittal 327 added additional clarification and signature assessment requirements aimed at the agency’s various contractor reviewers (i.e., MACs, CERTs, and RACs). In the transmittal, CMS says reviewers need to monitor the signature authentication process if the reason for a denial is a missing signature or an illegible signature. In that instance, the reviewer must follow a specific signature assessment protocol.
- If the signature is missing from any other medical documentation, excluding the order, the reviewer should accept a signature attestation from the author of the medical record entry.
- Providers should not add late signatures to the medical record “beyond the short delay that occurs during the transcription process” and should instead use the signature attestation process.
- Other providers in the same group may not attest to the original author’s signature.
- If the Medicare policy is “silent” on whether a signature must be dated, the reviewer has been instructed to ensure that the rest of the documentation contains enough information to determine the date when the service was ordered and/or performed. (For example, if the reviewer finds that the first and third orders on a page have a specific date; however, the second order on the same page is not dated. It could be assumed that the second order occurred on the same date.)
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to CDI Strategies!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched
