The Infected Decubitus: Writing a Query That Survives an Audit
Dr. N's progress note reads: 'Infected sacral decubitus - continue vancomycin.' The wound care nurse documents a 4 cm sacral wound with slough, foul odor, and 2 cm of surrounding erythema in a patient with paraplegia. A wound culture collected on the day of admission grows MRSA; blood cultures are negative; temperature was 38.6 C on admission only; lactate 1.4; no hypotension. The discharge summary lists 'chronic sacral ulcer.' No stage appears anywhere in the record. The coder has tentatively entered a stage 3 sacral pressure ulcer, cellulitis of the right lower limb, and a MRSA code, and is about to submit.
1. List what actually needs clarification, rank it, and identify what the coder should NOT be inferring.
Read the worked answer
Needs clarification, in order of coding impact:
- Organism linkage - a positive wound culture establishes that MRSA is present, not that it is causing infection. To use a MRSA code as the cause of a condition classified elsewhere, the provider must document that link; otherwise the organism may be colonization.
- Site and stage of the ulcer - pressure ulcer codes require both. Nothing in the record states a stage.
- Ulcer type - pressure versus diabetic, venous, or other. Paraplegia makes pressure likely, but 'decubitus' plus a stage request is not the same as a documented type.
- Present-on-admission status for the ulcer and the infection.
What the coder must not infer:
- The stage. Staging is a clinical determination by the wound care clinician. A coder cannot upgrade slough and odor to 'stage 3.'
- Cellulitis. Surrounding erythema is not a documented diagnosis of cellulitis; an infection of the ulcer itself is part of the ulcer, so a separate skin infection code is not supported.
- Sepsis. Negative blood cultures, normal lactate, no hypotension, and a single transient temperature give no basis to query for sepsis; the query must not introduce a diagnosis the record does not support.
2. Write the query you would send, and justify its structure.
Read the worked answer
Dr. ___: The wound care note describes a 4 cm sacral wound with slough, foul odor, and 2 cm of surrounding erythema in a patient with paraplegia; the wound culture from the day of admission grew MRSA. Please clarify the following:
- Type and stage of the wound: pressure ulcer (stage ____), pressure-induced deep tissue damage, unstageable, other (specify) ____, unable to determine.
- Relationship of MRSA to the wound: (a) MRSA is causing the wound infection; (b) MRSA colonization only; (c) other organism causing infection (specify) ____; (d) unable to determine.
- Was the wound and any infection present on admission? Yes / No / Unable to determine.
Why this structure:
- Each question is supported by specific clinical indicators drawn from the record (slough, odor, erythema, positive culture, paraplegia); the physician can see what prompted the question.
- No answer is suggested; 'unable to determine' and an open 'other' option are offered for each item.
- The questions are separated so a partial answer is still usable, rather than forcing the physician to accept or reject a bundled statement.
- No code numbers, no DRG, no payment language - a query that references reimbursement is not defensible.
- Staging is asked of the clinician, not decided by the coder.
3. A colleague proposes instead: 'Would you agree the patient has a stage 3 sacral pressure ulcer with MRSA infection and sepsis? Yes / No.' Critique it and explain the audit exposure.
Read the worked answer
Why it fails:
- Leading: it embeds the answer, so 'yes' carries no independent clinical judgment. A query must not supply the diagnosis it is asking the physician to confirm.
- Bundled: three separate clinical determinations (stage, organism linkage, sepsis) are collapsed into one yes/no, so the response cannot be decomposed or validated.
- The coder chose the stage ('stage 3'), which converts a clinical determination into a coding convenience.
- No 'unable to determine' option, forcing a binary answer where 'unknown' may be the truth.
- It proposes sepsis for which there are no supporting indicators.
- Downstream exposure: the query becomes part of the record. A payer or RAC auditor reading it sees the coder proposing a specific, higher-weighted diagnosis; the resulting claim is vulnerable on both documentation and integrity grounds, and the query itself becomes the evidence.
Rewrite: use the multi-part, indicator-based query above. If a single focused question is preferred, phrase it openly - 'Please clarify the type and stage of the sacral wound and whether the cultured MRSA is causing infection' - with listed options and 'unable to determine.'