How does the platform improve MDS accuracy and PDPM reimbursement without upcoding?
Expected outcome
MDS support and PDPM evidence review
Modeled from workflow design and industry benchmarks. No customer communities measured yet — figures are targets, not validated results. See Industry Findings for methodology.
The problem
Every MDS assessment directly affects reimbursement. An under-coded Section GG costs real dollars every day. Most MDS coordinators toggle between the clinical record and MDS software, hoping they captured every qualifying condition.
How the platform runs it
Required MDS assessments schedule automatically based on admission date, payer, and assessment type. When the coordinator opens an assessment, sections pre-populate from the clinical record — the coordinator validates rather than re-enters. Before submission, the system models PDPM reimbursement by PT, OT, SLP, nursing, and NTA component. If the documented clinical record supports a higher functional score than what is coded, the system flags it. This is accuracy, not upcoding.
On the shift
The MDS coordinator opens her dashboard the morning of an ARD. The system has pre-populated Section GG functional scores from the past week of CNA documentation, pulled diagnoses from the physician orders, surfaced ICD-10 codes that need Section I confirmation, and highlighted the four PDPM components where current documentation supports a higher case-mix than coded. She reviews each, accepts or adjusts, and locks the assessment. Reimbursement uplift on this resident is roughly $34 per day — captured because the supporting documentation already exists in the chart.
What the outcome looks like
Evidence focus: MDS support, Section GG documentation, and PDPM component evidence can be reviewed before submission. No reimbursement uplift or time-savings outcome is claimed here.
What goes wrong without it
On a stack where the MDS lives apart from clinical documentation, the coordinator re-asks the floor nurses for ADL scores from memory, hunts for the diagnosis sheet, and submits an assessment that under-reflects what the resident actually needs. Six months of under-coding on twenty residents is roughly $120,000 of left-behind PDPM revenue. The triple-check process exists but catches problems weeks after submission, when the modification window is closing and the documentation trail has gone cold.
Where this connects in the platform
Every clinical workflow runs on the same record. These are the feature pages, head-to-head comparisons, and pillar articles that go deeper on the surfaces this workflow touches.
Feature surfaces
Compared head-to-head
Clinical and quality references
Clinical workflows on this page run against the CMS RAI/MDS manual, the Quality Measure technical specifications, and the recognized clinical practice guidelines published by AGS, IDSA, and the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society.
- Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual
CMS
The binding rulebook for MDS assessment timing, item coding, and look-back windows that drive both quality measures and PDPM scoring.
- MDS 3.0 Quality Measures User's Manual
CMS
Technical specifications for the long- and short-stay quality measures reported on Care Compare.
- Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults
American Geriatrics Society
Reference standard for psychotropic stewardship and high-risk medication review in older adults.
- CDC / NHSN Long-Term Care Facility Component
CDC
Definitions and surveillance protocols for UTI, respiratory, and multidrug-resistant organism tracking used in infection control.