Assignment 1: evaluation and management (e/m)

NOTE: We do not resell pre-written papers. Upon ordering a paper, we custom-write an original paper exclusively for you. Please proceed and order an original paper to enjoy top grades.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Insurance coding and billing is complex, but it boils down to how to accurately apply a code, or CPT (current procedural terminology), to the service that you provided. The payer then reimburses the service at a certain rate. As a provider, you will have to understand what codes to use and what documentation is necessary to support coding.

For this Assignment, you will review evaluation and management (E/M) documentation for a patient and perform a crosswalk of codes from DSM-5-TR to ICD-10. 

Assignment 1: Evaluation and Management (E/M)

Insurance coding and billing is complex, but it boils down to how to accurately apply a code, or CPT (current procedural terminology), to the service that you provided. The payer then reimburses the service at a certain rate. As a provider, you will have to understand what codes to use and what documentation is necessary to support coding.

For this Assignment, you will review evaluation and management (E/M) documentation for a patient and perform a crosswalk of codes from DSM-5-TR to ICD-10. 

To Prepare

· Review this week’s Learning Resources on coding, billing, reimbursement.

· Review the E/M patient case scenario provided.

The Assignment

· Assign DSM-5-TR and ICD-10 codes to services based upon the patient case scenario. 

Then, in 1–2 pages address the following. You may add your narrative answers to these questions to the bottom of the case scenario document and submit altogether as one document.

· Explain what pertinent information, generally, is required in documentation to support DSM-5-TR and ICD-10 coding.

· Explain what pertinent documentation is missing from the case scenario, and what other information would be helpful to narrow your coding and billing options.

· Finally, explain how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.   

BRAINY PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF BELOW INSTRUCTOR’S EXPECTATIONS. THANKS.


Expectations

Assignments MUST have a 50% or less on Safe-assign.  I have had students fail out of the course in the past for PLAGERISM.

 

SAFE-ASSIGN HAS TO BE LOWER THAN 50%, AND IF IT’S HIGHER AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT PAST ASSIGNMENTS WERE REUSED FROM ANOTHER COURSE OR THERE ARE ANY SIGNS OF PLAGIARISM, AN AI INVESTIGATION WILL BE OPEN. 

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NRNP_6675_Week2_Assignment1_Rubric

  Excellent

90%–100%

Good

80%–89%

Fair

70%–79%

Poor

0%–69%

In the E/M patient case scenario provided:

• Assign DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes to services based upon the patient case scenario.

Points:

Points Range:
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario are correct, with no more than a minor error.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario are mostly correct, with a few minor errors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario contain several errors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario contain significant errors, or response is missing.

Feedback:

In 1–2 pages, address the following:

• Explain what pertinent information, generally, is required in documentation to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Points:

Points Range:
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)

The response accurately and concisely explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)

The response accurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding, or the explanation is incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

• Explain what pertinent documentation is missing from the case scenario, and what other information would be helpful to narrow your coding and billing options.

Points:

Points Range:
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)

The response accurately and concisely identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and clearly identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)

The response accurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario or partially identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options, or this information is incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

• Finally, explain how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response accurately and concisely explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response accurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement, or response may be incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time.

Purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion were not provided.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting –

The paper follows correct APA format for parenthetical/in-text citations and reference list.

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 APA format errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 APA format errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more APA format errors

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

In the E/M patient case scenario provided:

• Assign DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes to services based upon the patient case scenario.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario are correct, with no more than a minor error.

Good

80%–89%
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario are mostly correct, with a few minor errors.

Fair

70%–79%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario contain several errors.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario contain significant errors, or response is missing.

Feedback:

In 1–2 pages, address the following:

• Explain what pertinent information, generally, is required in documentation to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)

The response accurately and concisely explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Good

80%–89%
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)

The response accurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Fair

70%–79%
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding, or the explanation is incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

• Explain what pertinent documentation is missing from the case scenario, and what other information would be helpful to narrow your coding and billing options.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)

The response accurately and concisely identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and clearly identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Good

80%–89%
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)

The response accurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Fair

70%–79%
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario or partially identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options, or this information is incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

• Finally, explain how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response accurately and concisely explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Good

80%–89%
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response accurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Fair

70%–79%
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement, or response may be incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time.

Purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion were not provided.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting –

The paper follows correct APA format for parenthetical/in-text citations and reference list.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 APA format errors

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 APA format errors

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more APA format errors

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6675_Week2_Assignment1_Rubric

Pathways Mental Health

Psychiatric Patient Evaluation

Instructions

Use the following case template to complete Week 2 Assignment 1. On page 5, assign DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes to the services documented. You will add your narrative answers to the assignment questions to the bottom of this template and submit altogether as one document.

Identifying Information

Identification was verified by stating of their name and date of birth.
Time spent for evaluation: 0900am-0957am

Chief Complaint

“My other provider retired. I don’t think I’m doing so well.”

HPI

25 yo Russian female evaluated for psychiatric evaluation referred from her retiring practitioner for PTSD, ADHD, Stimulant Use Disorder, in remission. She is currently prescribed fluoxetine 20mg po daily for PTSD, atomoxetine 80mg po daily for ADHD.

Today, client denied symptoms of depression, denied anergia, anhedonia, amotivation, no anxiety, denied frequent worry, reports feeling restlessness, no reported panic symptoms, no reported obsessive/compulsive behaviors. Client denies active SI/HI ideations, plans or intent. There is no evidence of psychosis or delusional thinking. Client denied past episodes of hypomania, hyperactivity, erratic/excessive spending, involvement in dangerous activities, self-inflated ego, grandiosity, or promiscuity. Client reports increased irritability and easily frustrated, loses things easily, makes mistakes, hard time focusing and concentrating, affecting her job. Has low frustration tolerance, sleeping 5–6 hrs/24hrs reports nightmares of previous rape, isolates, fearful to go outside, has missed several days of work, appetite decreased. She has somatic concerns with GI upset and headaches. Client denied any current binging/purging behaviors, denied withholding food from self or engaging in anorexic behaviors. No self-mutilation behaviors.

Diagnostic Screening Results

Screen of symptoms in the past 2 weeks: 

PHQ 9 = 0 with symptoms rated as no difficulty in functioning 
Interpretation of Total Score 
Total Score Depression Severity 1-4 Minimal depression 5-9 Mild depression 10-14 Moderate depression 15-19 Moderately severe depression 20-27 Severe depression 

GAD 7 = 2 with symptoms rated as no difficulty in functioning 
Interpreting the Total Score: 
Total Score Interpretation ≥10 Possible diagnosis of GAD; confirm by further evaluation 5 Mild Anxiety 10 Moderate anxiety 15 Severe anxiety 

MDQ screen negative

PCL-5 Screen 32

Past Psychiatric and Substance Use Treatment

Entered mental health system when she was age 19 after raped by a stranger during a house burglary.
Previous Psychiatric Hospitalizations:  denied
Previous Detox/Residential treatments: one for abuse of stimulants and cocaine in 2015
Previous psychotropic medication trials: sertraline (became suicidal), trazodone (worsened nightmares), bupropion (became suicidal), Adderall (began abusing)
Previous mental health diagnosis per client/medical record: GAD, Unspecified Trauma, PTSD, Stimulant use disorder, ADHD confirmed by school records

Substance Use History

Have you used/abused any of the following (include frequency/amt/last use):

Substance Y/N Frequency/Last Use
Tobacco products Y ½
ETOH Y last drink 2 weeks ago, reports drinks 1-2 times monthly one drink socially 
Cannabis N
Cocaine Y last use 2015
Prescription stimulants Y last use 2015
Methamphetamine N
Inhalants N
Sedative/sleeping pills N
Hallucinogens N
Street Opioids N
Prescription opioids N
Other: specify (spice, K2, bath salts, etc.) Y reports one-time ecstasy use in 2015

Any history of substance related: 
Blackouts: + 
Tremors:   –
DUI: – 
D/T’s: –
Seizures: – 
Longest sobriety reported since 2015—stayed sober maintaining sponsor, sober friends, and meetings

Psychosocial History

Client was raised by adoptive parents since age 6; from Russian orphanage. She has unknown siblings. She is single; has no children.
Employed at local tanning bed salon
Education: High School Diploma
Denied current legal issues.

Suicide / HOmicide Risk Assessment

RISK FACTORS FOR SUICIDE:
Suicidal Ideas or plans – no
Suicide gestures in past – no
Psychiatric diagnosis – yes
Physical Illness (chronic, medical) – no
Childhood trauma – yes
Cognition not intact – no
Support system – yes
Unemployment – no
Stressful life events – yes
Physical abuse – yes
Sexual abuse – yes
Family history of suicide – unknown
Family history of mental illness – unknown
Hopelessness – no
Gender – female
Marital status – single
White race
Access to means
Substance abuse – in remission

PROTECTIVE FACTORS FOR SUICIDE:
Absence of psychosis – yes
Access to adequate health care – yes
Advice & help seeking – yes
Resourcefulness/Survival skills – yes
Children – no
Sense of responsibility – yes
Pregnancy – no; last menses one week ago, has Norplant
Spirituality – yes
Life satisfaction – “fair amount”
Positive coping skills – yes
Positive social support – yes
Positive therapeutic relationship – yes
Future oriented – yes

Suicide Inquiry: Denies active suicidal ideations, intentions, or plans. Denies recent self-harm behavior. Talks futuristically. Denied history of suicidal/homicidal ideation/gestures; denied history of self-mutilation behaviors

Global Suicide Risk Assessment: The client is found to be at low risk of suicide or violence, however, risk of lethality increased under context of drugs/alcohol.

No required SAFETY PLAN related to low risk

Mental Status Examination

She is a 25 yo Russian female who looks her stated age. She is cooperative with examiner. She is neatly groomed and clean, dressed appropriately. There is mild psychomotor restlessness. Her speech is clear, coherent, normal in volume and tone, has strong cultural accent. Her thought process is ruminative. There is no evidence of looseness of association or flight of ideas. Her mood is anxious, mildly irritable, and her affect appropriate to her mood. She was smiling at times in an appropriate manner. She denies any auditory or visual hallucinations. There is no evidence of any delusional thinking. She denies any current suicidal or homicidal ideation. Cognitively, She is alert and oriented to all spheres. Her recent and remote memory is intact. Her concentration is fair. Her insight is good.

Clinical Impression

Client is a 25 yo Russian female who presents with history of treatment for PTSD, ADHD, Stimulant use Disorder, in remission.
Moods are anxious and irritable. She has ongoing reported symptoms of re-experiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal of her past trauma experiences; ongoing subsyndromal symptoms related to her past ADHD diagnosis and exacerbated by her PTSD diagnosis. She denied vegetative symptoms of depression, no evident mania/hypomania, no psychosis, denied anxiety symptoms. Denied current cravings for drugs/alcohol, exhibits no withdrawal symptoms, has somatic concerns of GI upset and headaches.
At the time of disposition, the client adamantly denies SI/HI ideations, plans or intent and has the ability to determine right from wrong, and can anticipate the potential consequences of behaviors and actions. She is a low risk for self-harm based on her current clinical presentation and her risk and protective factors.

Diagnostic Impression

[Student to provide DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding]

Double click inside this text box to add/edit text. Delete placeholder text when you add your answers.

Treatment Plan

Medication:
Increase fluoxetine 40mg po daily for PTSD #30 1 RF
Continue with atomoxetine 80mg po daily for ADHD. #30 1 RF

Instructed to call and report any adverse reactions.

Future Plan: monitor for decrease re-experiencing, hyperarousal, and avoidance symptoms; monitor for improved concentration, less mistakes, less forgetful

Education: Risks and benefits of medications are discussed including non-treatment. Potential side effects of medications discussed. Verbal informed consent obtained.

Not to drive or operate dangerous machinery if feeling sedated.

Not to stop medication abruptly without discussing with providers.

Discussed risks of mixing medications with OTC drugs, herbal, alcohol/illegal drugs. Instructed to avoid this practice. Praised and Encouraged ongoing abstinence. Maintain support system, sponsors, and meetings.

Discussed how drugs/ETOH affects mental health, physical health, sleep architecture.

Patient was educated about therapy and services of the MHC including emergent care. Referral was sent via email to therapy team for PET treatment.

Patient has emergency numbers: Emergency Services 911, the national Crisis Line 800-273-TALK, the MHC Crisis Clinic. Patient was instructed to go to nearest ER or call 911 if they become actively suicidal and/or homicidal.

Time allowed for questions and answers provided. Provided supportive listening. Patient appeared to understand discussion and appears to have capacity for decision making via verbal conversation.

RTC in 30 days

Follow up with PCP for GI upset and headaches, reviewed PCP history and physical dated one week ago and include lab results

Patient is amenable with this plan and agrees to follow treatment regimen as discussed.

Narrative Answers

[In 1-2 pages, address the following:

· Explain what pertinent information, generally, is required in documentation to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

· Explain what pertinent documentation is missing from the case scenario, and what other information would be helpful to narrow your coding and billing options.

· Finally, explain how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.]

Add your answers here. Delete instructions and placeholder text when you add your answers.

References

[Add APA-formatted citations for any sources you referenced]

Delete instructions and placeholder text when you add your citations.

Page | 2

Walden University, LLC

.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_lumMod_40_lumOff_60_Fill {
fill:#B1D1E3;
}

.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_lumMod_60_lumOff_40_Fill {
fill:#8ABAD4;
}

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW
Writerbay.net

Do you need help with an assignment? We work for the best interests of our clients and maintain professionalism to offer brilliant writing services in most of academic fields—ranging from nursing, philosophy, psychology, biology, finance, accounting, criminal justice, mathematics, computer science, among others.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper