×
![]()
Sepsis Blog Series: Part 1
CMS’s new sepsis readmission measure marks a significant shift in how organizations must approach documentation integrity, coding, quality measurement, and clinical validation. Built on administrative claims data and risk adjustment, the measure evaluates hospital performance using publicly reportable 30-day readmission outcomes following sepsis hospitalization. (CMS)
This sepsis series is designed to help organizations build the capabilities necessary to ensure clinically supported conditions are accurately represented from provider documentation through final coded data and ultimately reflected in quality outcomes and public reporting. (CMS)
Focus: Why the finalized CMS Sepsis Readmission Measure changes CDI’s role.
Key Tenets
Executive Indicators to Monitor
As organizations shift from documentation optimization to outcome optimization, leaders need visibility into the measures that signal whether patient complexity is being accurately represented and whether improvement efforts are translating into measurable performance outcomes. The following indicators can serve as an initial executive dashboard:
Outcome Measures
Documentation and Coding Measures
Clinical Validation and Denials Measures
Together, these measures provide insight into the entire continuum of documentation integrity, coding accuracy, clinical validation, risk adjustment, and outcome performance. Monitoring them at the executive level reinforces the understanding that documentation is not solely a revenue cycle function but a critical component of quality measurement and public reporting. (CMS)
Action Item:
Conduct an executive briefing with CDI, Coding, Quality, Revenue Cycle, and Physician Advisor leadership to review the finalized Sepsis Readmission Measure and identify where accountability currently exists for documentation, coding, clinical validation, readmissions, and quality reporting. (CMS)
Leadership Reflection
If CMS assessed our organization’s ability to accurately represent patient complexity today, would we have confidence that documentation, coding, quality, and clinical validation efforts are working toward a common outcome, or are they still operating as separate initiatives? (CMS)
Focus: Understanding why documentation alone does not impact quality measures.
As organizations prepare for implementation, leaders should address a common misconception: documentation improvement and coding are not separate strategies. They are consecutive steps in the same process for accurately representing patient complexity in claims data. The sepsis readmission measure is built on administrative claims data. Providers document the clinical story, but only documented conditions that are appropriately translated into coded data can influence risk adjustment, quality reporting, and hospital performance measurement. (CMS)
Key Tenets
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item:
Select a sample of recent sepsis discharges and compare documented diagnoses against final coded claims to identify conditions that were documented but not coded, coded but poorly supported, or insufficiently specified. Use findings to establish a baseline documentation-to-code accuracy rate.
Leadership Reflection
How often do we assume that a documented diagnosis automatically influences quality performance, risk adjustment, and public reporting without verifying that it was ultimately translated into coded data?(CMS)
Focus: Strengthening the CDI-Coding partnership.
Key Tenets
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item
Establish a recurring CDI-Coding reconciliation review focused on quality-impacting diagnoses such as severe sepsis, septic shock, malnutrition, frailty, respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, and other major risk-adjustment variables. (CMS)
Leadership Reflection
If CDI and Coding reported to different departments tomorrow, would we still be confident that risk-adjustment diagnoses are consistently represented in claims data?
Focus: Connecting documentation and coding to risk adjustment and public reporting.
Key Tenets
The sepsis measure risk-adjusts for conditions including:
These conditions only influence risk adjustment when appropriately documented and coded. (CMS)
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item
Perform a risk-adjustment gap analysis using sepsis cases to determine whether diagnoses included in the CMS methodology are consistently documented and coded across physicians, service lines, and facilities. (CMS)
Leadership Reflection
If a patient with significant complexity experiences a readmission, can we confidently say that the risk-adjustment model had access to a complete and accurate representation of that patient’s severity, comorbidities, organ dysfunction, and frailty? (CMS)
Focus: Building physician leadership around documentation integrity and outcome optimization.
Key Tenets
Physician Advisors can support:
A Sepsis Physician Champion can help:
Sustainable success requires physician-led alignment between clinical care, documentation, coding, and quality measurement. (CMS)
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item
Identify a Physician Advisor and/or Sepsis Physician Champion to partner with CDI, Coding, and Quality in provider education, readmission review, clinical validation discussions, and documentation performance monitoring.
Leadership Reflection
Who in our organization is accountable for influencing physician documentation behaviors, educating providers on evolving quality measures, and creating alignment between clinical practice, documentation, coding, and quality outcomes? (CMS)
Focus: Improving representation of patient complexity through frailty capture.
Key Tenets
The finalized methodology includes a Multiple Chronic Conditions Frailty Index that incorporates indicators such as:
Frailty documentation often requires collaboration among:
Frailty may become one of the most important drivers of risk-adjusted complexity under outcome-based measurement. (CMS)
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item
Partner with Rehabilitation Services, Nursing, Care Management, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care to identify opportunities to improve recognition and documentation of frailty, debility, malnutrition, functional decline, and durable medical equipment dependence. (CMS)
Leadership Reflection
Would an external reviewer examining our records consistently recognize the patient’s functional decline, frailty, malnutrition, and overall complexity, or are we still under-representing these important risk factors in the health record? (CMS)
Focus: Using denials and appeals to improve documentation and quality performance.
Key Tenets
Medicare Advantage payers frequently challenge sepsis diagnoses using:
Rebuttal letters often contain:
Rather than treating denials solely as revenue-recovery activities, organizations can use them as tools for education, validation improvement, and documentation enhancement. (CMS)
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item
Review the previous six months of sepsis clinical validation denials and categorize common themes such as organ dysfunction documentation, Sepsis-2 versus Sepsis-3 disagreements, severity representation, and physician documentation opportunities
Leadership Reflection
What are our top five sepsis denial themes, and how often are those same themes appearing in readmitted sepsis patients?
Focus: Connecting clinical validation and quality measurement.
Key Tenets
Two questions increasingly overlap:
Clinical Validation
Was sepsis clinically supported?
Quality Measurement
Was the patient’s complexity accurately represented?
Organizations that address both questions together create stronger alignment among CDI, Coding, Physician Advisors, Quality, and Denials Management teams. (CMS)
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item
Bring CDI, Coding, Physician Advisors, Quality, and Denials teams together for a shared review of denied sepsis cases and readmitted sepsis patients to identify overlapping documentation and risk-adjustment vulnerabilities.
Leadership Reflection
When we review sepsis cases, are clinical validation and quality performance discussed together, or do we continue to separate conversations about diagnosis support from conversations about outcome measurement and risk adjustment? (CMS)
Focus: Applying documentation and coding expertise to readmission reviews.
Key Tenets
Readmission reviews should assess:
The goal is to understand both the patient’s clinical course and whether complexity was accurately represented in the record and coded data. (CMS)
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item
Add CDI and Coding representation to existing sepsis readmission review processes and incorporate a standardized review of documentation integrity, code capture, risk-adjustment diagnoses, and discharge complexity.
Leadership Reflection
Do our readmission reviews focus solely on the reasons a patient returned to the hospital, or do they also evaluate whether documentation and coding accurately reflected the patient’s complexity at the time of discharge? (CMS)
Focus: Creating sustainable governance and accountability.
Key Tenets
Organizations should build a cross-functional model involving:
Success requires shared ownership of documentation integrity, coding integrity, clinical validation, quality performance, and readmission outcomes. (CMS)
Executive Indicators to Monitor
Action Item
Develop a formal governance structure with shared ownership among CDI, Coding, Quality, Physician Advisors, Care Management, Denials Management, and Revenue Integrity. Establish metrics, reporting cadence, escalation paths, accountability, and annual goals for documentation integrity and outcome performance.
Leadership Reflection
One year from now, how will we know that our organization has successfully transitioned from documentation optimization to outcome optimization, and what metrics will demonstrate that clinically supported conditions are being documented, coded, validated, defended, and accurately reflected in our reported performance? (CMS)
Implementation Checklist
Organizations preparing for the finalized measure should consider the following actions:
Final Takeaway
The finalized CMS Sepsis Readmission Measure signals a fundamental evolution of CDI. Organizations that continue to view CDI solely through the lens of MS-DRG optimization may miss a significant opportunity. (CMS)
As quality measurement increasingly evaluates what happens after discharge, CDI programs can help ensure hospitals receive appropriate credit for the complexity of patients they serve while helping identify opportunities to reduce avoidable readmissions. (CMS)
The most successful organizations will build strong partnerships among:
Together, these groups can ensure that clinically supported conditions are:
Documented, coded, validated, defended, and accurately reflected in the data CMS uses to evaluate hospital performance.
Because in the era of outcome-based measurement:
Documentation is not the finish line. Accurate representation of the patient through coded data is. (CMS)
And perhaps most importantly:
Documentation is no longer only a reimbursement strategy. It is a coding strategy, a quality strategy, a readmission strategy, and a public reporting strategy. (CMS)
Resource:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: (August 4, 2026). FY 2027 IPPS Final Rule Home Page. Retrieved from: FY 2027 IPPS Final Rule Home Page | CMS
