2016 ICD-10 productivity survey: Survey respondents share challenges, successes

In February 2016, just four months after ICD-10 go-live, HIM Briefings asked a range of healthcare professionals to weigh in on their productivity in ICD-9 versus ICD-10.

In general, the time spent coding records has increased since ICD-10 implementation for most record types. In fact, one respondent said his or her facility noticed a 40%?50% decline in productivity. However, another respondent noted that coder productivity often varies based on the physician who documented in the record, as some physicians are more in tune with the language of ICD-10 than others. One-third (33%) of respondents were coders, whereas 21% identified as coding directors, managers, or supervisors. Approximately 16% identified as HIM directors, managers, or assistant directors or managers, while 12% of respondents were clinical documentation improvement (CDI) specialists. A small percentage of quality/performance improvement directors, vendors, consultants, IT directors/managers, billers, and auditors weighed in as well. More than half (53%) of respondents work in acute care hospitals.

One respondent said that his or her facility expects the same productivity in ICD-10 as it had in ICD-9, a nearly impossible feat in some cases. "The productivity requirements have not changed from ICD-9 to ICD-10. The current requirement for our facility is 18 charts per day (minimum 14). Very challenging and almost unobtainable."

The HCPro survey questions asked for the average minutes to code a record type. Some respondents wrote in the daily number of records coded, while others indicated the number of records averaged per hour.

This is an excerpt from member-only content. Please log in or become a member.