The Amendment Request the Physician Refuses
Twelve days after a clinic visit, a 45-year-old patient submits a written request to amend her record. The progress note reads: 'Patient reports drinking 6 beers daily.' She states she said 'two beers, a few times a week,' that the note is wrong, and asks that the sentence be deleted. The HIM director forwards the request to the physician, who reviews his note and the dictation and replies in writing: 'My documentation is accurate. Patient was counseled and may be minimizing.' Facility policy sets a 30-day turnaround for amendment requests. Separately, the patient asks for a copy of the full record, including the note in question.
1. Must the facility delete or change the sentence? What are its obligations and what is the deadline?
Read the worked answer
No - deletion is not an available outcome here, and it would not be even if the physician agreed the note was wrong.
The right at issue is the patient's right to request amendment of protected health information, not a right to have the record rewritten. The facility may deny the request when it determines, after review, that the information is accurate and complete. That is the determination the physician made here, and a contemporaneous documentation dispute about what a patient said is exactly the kind of entry that a clinician is entitled to defend.
Obligations:
- Act on the request within 60 days; one 30-day extension is permitted with written notice. The internal 30-day policy is fine as long as it is actually met.
- Respond in writing, and if denying, give the basis for denial in plain language and notice of the patient's right to submit a statement of disagreement and to complain to HHS.
- Never obliterate the original. No whiteout, no overwritten text, no deletion from the EHR. Amendments are additive; the original entry, the amendment, and the audit trail all remain.
- The patient's copy request is handled independently and is not conditioned on the amendment outcome.
A coder or HIM technician may not edit the sentence to reflect the patient's version under any circumstances.
2. The patient submits a written statement of disagreement. What must the facility do with it?
Read the worked answer
The statement becomes part of the record and travels with the information it disputes.
Required handling:
- Include the statement of disagreement in any subsequent disclosures of the disputed information. It is not optional and not at the discloser's discretion.
- The facility may include a concise written rebuttal of the patient's statement; if it does, the patient gets a copy.
- In an EHR, link or flag the disputed information so it cannot be released without the statement attached - this is where documentation practice and system configuration meet.
- If the patient asks, provide a list of the persons or entities to whom the disputed information has been disclosed, so the statement can be sent to them as well.
The clinical disagreement is now permanently part of the record: note, denial, statement of disagreement. That is the intended design - the record reflects that a dispute exists rather than resolving it by fiat.
3. Two months later a coder notices a different, unambiguous error: the physician documented 'left knee' but the operative report clearly documents a right knee arthroscopy. Can the coder correct it, and by what mechanism?
Read the worked answer
The coder cannot correct it, and should not try.
This is not a patient amendment; it is an internal documentation error found during coding or quality review. The mechanism is a provider-authored correction: the physician reviews the discrepancy and adds a dated, authenticated addendum or late entry identifying and correcting the error, with the original entry preserved. Some facilities route this through a formal 'correction' function that retains both versions and an audit trail - the requirement either way is that authorship of the correction rest with the physician and that nothing is silently overwritten.
What the coder does:
- Do not code from the erroneous body-site documentation and do not silently 'fix' it in the encoder.
- Query the physician, citing both conflicting statements, so the record shows a single defensible laterality.
- If the claim is already submitted, flag it for correction once the addendum exists - coder-initiated retrospective edits to the provider's documentation, even when the coder is correct about the facts, compromise the integrity of the record and the credibility of the audit trail.
A right-knee arthroscopy coded as left is a wrong-site code; it is also the kind of error that a payer or RAC will find by comparing the procedure note to the claim.