Free Practice Questions for ACDIS CCDS Exam

Severe intellectual disability is recognized ICD-10-CM terminology and maps to F72, Severe intellectual disabilities. The other phrases are not equivalent standardized ICD-10-CM diagnostic terminology.

This distinction is highly relevant to CDI. Terms used conversationally in the clinical record do not necessarily provide sufficient specificity or map cleanly to reportable ICD-10-CM diagnoses. When a patient's cognitive or developmental condition affects treatment, monitoring, self-management, nursing requirements, or the complexity of care, the CDI specialist should seek clinically appropriate provider documentation using recognized diagnostic terminology.

For FY 2026 MS-DRG logic, CMS identifies F72 as a CC, meaning it can qualify as a complication/comorbidity when it meets secondary-diagnosis reporting requirements. That does not mean the CDI specialist should query merely for reimbursement impact. The query must be clinically justified by the record and should allow the provider to determine the correct diagnosis.

“Severe mental challenge,” “acute mental incapacity,” and “acute intellectual disability” do not represent the same codable disease classification.

CCDS Reference Topics: Medical terminology; mental/behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders; CC recognition; clinically supported query opportunities.

=========

A condition documented in the medical record does not automatically qualify as a reportable secondary diagnosis. For inpatient coding, additional diagnoses generally must be clinically significant during the current hospitalization. Qualifying significance includes clinical evaluation, therapeutic treatment, diagnostic procedures, an extended length of stay, or increased nursing care and/or monitoring.

Here, GERD is merely part of the patient's historical medical background and does not affect current management. Therefore, it generally should not be reported as an additional diagnosis solely because it appears in the past medical history.

Whether a diagnosis is classified as a CC or MCC is a separate issue. A condition must first satisfy applicable reporting requirements before its MS-DRG severity classification matters. CDI specialists should never encourage coding of clinically irrelevant historical conditions merely because they could affect reimbursement.

This principle protects the clinical integrity of coded data and prevents inappropriate inflation of disease burden. CDI review should focus on conditions that meaningfully describe the patient's current hospitalization, treatment requirements, clinical risk, and resource consumption.

CCDS Reference Topics: Reporting additional diagnoses; secondary-diagnosis criteria; medical-record review; resource utilization; coding compliance.

=========

A query should not be issued solely because a diagnosis would increase reimbursement when the record contains no clinical basis for that diagnosis.

The 2026 ACDIS/AHIMA compliant-query guidance establishes that CDI clarification must be grounded in the patient's clinical record and directed toward ensuring accurate representation of clinical status. The updated guidance supersedes all previous versions and applies across CDI and coding environments.

Financial impact may occur as a consequence of accurate documentation, but it cannot be the clinical rationale for introducing an unsupported condition. A query containing a single unsupported diagnosis would also risk being leading or otherwise noncompliant.

Likewise, a coder cannot provisionally manufacture a diagnosis simply because it would affect the MS-DRG. Code assignment depends on the documented clinical record and applicable coding conventions.

This principle applies equally in the opposite direction: if clarification could reduce reimbursement but is necessary to correct inaccurate, conflicting, or unsupported documentation, CDI should still pursue clarification. Effective CDI programs protect the integrity of the health record, not a predetermined financial outcome.

CCDS Reference Topics: Ethics; query compliance; clinical support; reimbursement neutrality; documentation integrity.

=========

ICD-10-CM presumes a causal relationship between hypertension and chronic kidney disease when both are documented, unless the provider specifically states that the conditions are unrelated. Therefore, the working coding logic should recognize hypertensive CKD and additionally identify the patient's CKD stage.

The FY 2026 Official Guidelines direct assignment of a code from category I12, Hypertensive chronic kidney disease, when hypertension and a condition classified to N18.- are both present. An additional N18.- code is required to identify the CKD stage. In this case, the documented stage is 3b.

A provider query solely to establish the hypertension-CKD relationship is unnecessary because ICD-10-CM itself supplies the presumed relationship. However, a query could become necessary if the physician explicitly states or strongly suggests that the CKD is unrelated to hypertension or if conflicting documentation exists.

The CDI specialist must distinguish coding conventions that automatically establish certain relationships from situations in which provider linkage is mandatory. This prevents unnecessary queries and supports accurate working-DRG assignment.

CCDS Reference Topics: Hypertensive CKD; presumed causal relationships; CKD staging; coding conventions; working MS-DRG.

=========

The observed-to-expected mortality ratio is calculated as:

80 observed deaths ÷ 100 expected deaths = 0.80.

A ratio below 1.0 means observed mortality is lower than predicted. In this case, the number of observed deaths is 20% below the expected number.

Accurate interpretation of mortality data is important for CDI because documentation contributes to the clinical information used by many risk-adjustment methodologies. If significant comorbidities or acute conditions are inadequately documented, the coded record may not fully represent the patient's severity or mortality risk.

However, CDI professionals must avoid treating risk-adjustment improvement as justification for unsupported diagnoses. Documentation should accurately represent conditions that were clinically present, evaluated, treated, monitored, or otherwise reportable according to applicable rules.

The official CCDS content outline specifically includes severity of illness/risk of mortality, physician documentation effects on public reporting, and analysis of hospital performance among its expected competencies.

Mortality ratios should also be interpreted in context; they are influenced by patient population, model methodology, documentation, coding accuracy, and actual clinical outcomes.

CCDS Reference Topics: O/E mortality; ROM; risk adjustment; quality outcomes; CDI program analysis.

=========