View June's Board Pack - Royal Bournemouth Hospital

91 The following area for improvement has been identified;■ reinforce the importance of recording the mandatory co-morbidities fromthe March 2010 Coding Clinic, as omission of secondary diagnoses wasan issue from both the coder and clinical perspective.92 There were 17 non-coder errors due to the source document notholding all the relevant information for the coder at the time/point of codingaffecting four primary and 13 secondary diagnoses.93 The coder errors were in the following areas:■■incorrect coding at the required 3- character level affecting one primaryand four secondary diagnoses; andomission of diagnosis and procedures – affecting two secondarydiagnoses.94 There are five instances when information not relevant to the episode ofcare has been coded. NHS CFH does not treat this as an error and werethey to have been included they would have accounted for none of the HRGchanges. The Trust should seek to code only relevant information.Financial impact of errorsTable 19: HRG area: financial impact of errorsPre AuditPaymentPost AuditPaymentGrossChange% GrossChangeNetChange£14,261 £14,261 £0 0.0 £0 0.0% NetChange95 The sample of spells audited covered £14,261 of activity. The errorshad no financial impact on the sample tested.Data Issues96 There were no data issues identified within the HRG area.Audit Commission Payment by results data assurance framework 68