Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Factors associated with neonatal coding knowledge: results of a national survey

Journal of Perinatology volume 42, pages 1415–1416 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Medical coding is an intrinsic facet of healthcare delivery and translates physician work into a common language understood by clinicians, hospitals, and insurance carriers. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) system developed by the American Medical Association in 1966 uses descriptive terminology to communicate accurately the work that is performed by clinicians to insurers [1]. However, few clinicians receive formal training on coding best practices [2].

Neonatal coding is unique. There are two sets of global codes that are commonly used. They are based on the acute needs of the patient and their age. If the patient is deemed to be critical, the specific code used is determined by the patient's age, 28 days or less or between 29 days of life and 5 years of age. If the patient is to determined to require intensive care, then the correct code is based on the patient’s current weight up to 5000 grams. All of these are daily codes that bundle all evaluation and management components of care occurring within a calendar day and include many commonly performed procedures [3]. The purpose of this study was to assess coding knowledge and its relationship with the level of coding confidence, years in practice, institutional setting, gender identity, and sources of coding training among neonatologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Dotson P. CPT((R)) codes: what are they, why are they necessary, and how are they developed? Adv Wound Care. 2013;2:583–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2013.0483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Faux M, Adams J, Wardle J. Educational needs of medical practitioners about medical billing: a scoping review of the literature. Hum Resour Health. 2021;19:84 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-021-00631-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Duncan, SD, Martin GI, Pearlman SA, eds. A Quick Reference Guide to Neonatal Coding and Documentation, 2nd edition. American Academy of Pediatrics; 2016.

  4. Zafirah SA, Nur AM, Puteh SEW, Aljunid SM. Potential loss of revenue due to errors in clinical coding during the implementation of the Malaysia diagnosis-related group (MY-DRG((R))) Casemix system in a teaching hospital in Malaysia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:38 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2843-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kelley KA, Hoops HE, Palmer L, Cohen NA, Brasel KJ. Implementation of a medical coding curriculum for surgery residents. Am J Surg. 2019;217:834–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.02.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA

    Sheri L. Nemerofsky, Ellen Johnson Silver & Deborah Campbell

  2. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Edward A. Liechty

  3. Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Stephen A. Pearlman

Authors
  1. Sheri L. Nemerofsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellen Johnson Silver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward A. Liechty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen A. Pearlman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Deborah Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SLN conceptualized and designed the study, collected data, carried out analysis and interpretation, drafted the initial manuscript, reviewed, and revised the manuscript. EJS conceptualized, designed the study analysis, carried out data analysis, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. EAL conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted data, reviewed, and revised the manuscript. SAP conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted data, reviewed, and revised the manuscript. DC conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted data, reviewed, and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheri L. Nemerofsky.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nemerofsky, S.L., Silver, E.J., Liechty, E.A. et al. Factors associated with neonatal coding knowledge: results of a national survey. J Perinatol 42, 1415–1416 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01414-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01414-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links