Documenting Emergency Encounters

---
name: documenting-emergency-encounters
language: en
description: Structures ED visit documentation with chief complaint, MDM, and disposition rationale. Use when charting emergency visits, documenting medical decision-making, or creating ED notes.
tags:
  - documentation
  - emergency-medicine
metadata:
  author: casemark
  practice_areas:
    - Emergency Medicine
  document_types:
    - Clinical Documentation
  skill_modes:
    - Documentation
---

# Documenting Emergency Encounters

Structures emergency department visit documentation with chief complaint, history, examination, medical decision-making (MDM), and disposition rationale per 2021 E/M coding guidelines.

## Why This Skill Exists

Emergency department documentation serves three simultaneous purposes: clinical communication, medicolegal protection, and billing compliance. ED physicians face malpractice claims at rates 3-4 times higher than most specialties, and the medical record is the primary defense document. Under the 2021 CMS Evaluation and Management (E/M) guidelines, ED visit coding (99281-99285) is now driven by medical decision-making (MDM) complexity rather than documentation volume, but the record must still support the billed level of service.

Incomplete documentation is the leading cause of ED coding downgrades, costing the average emergency group $50,000-$150,000 annually in lost revenue. Beyond billing, inadequate documentation contributes to communication failures — the Joint Commission identifies handoff communication breakdowns as a root cause in over 60% of sentinel events. This skill ensures ED notes are clinically accurate, legally defensible, and compliant with CMS documentation requirements.

---

## Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake (Mandatory)

1. What is the chief complaint and how did the patient present (walk-in, EMS, transfer)? (Default: document verbatim chief complaint and arrival mode)
2. What is the acuity level assigned at triage? (Default: reference ESI level from triage)
3. What is the time-critical nature of the visit (stroke alert, STEMI, trauma activation, sepsis alert)? (Default: document any protocol activations)
4. What prior records are available in the EMR? (Default: review problem list, medications, allergies, prior ED visits)
5. Who provided the history (patient, family, EMS, bystander)? (Default: document historian and reliability)
6. What is the intended billing level (99281-99285)? (Default: determine based on MDM complexity)

### Documents to Request

- EMS prehospital care report
- Triage assessment and vital signs
- Prior ED visit notes (especially within 72 hours for bounce-back review)
- Current medication list and allergy history
- Advance directives, healthcare proxy documentation
- Outside hospital records if transfer patient
- Prior imaging reports relevant to current complaint

---

## Step 1: Chief Complaint and History of Present Illness

### Chief Complaint (CC)
Document in the patient's own words using quotation marks. Keep to one sentence.
- Example: "My chest has been hurting for the past 2 hours."
- Avoid medical jargon as the CC (use "chest pain" not "rule out ACS")

### History of Present Illness (HPI)
Use the OLDCARTS mnemonic for symptom characterization:

| Element | Content | Example |
|---------|---------|---------|
| **O**nset | When and how the symptom began | "Sudden onset 2 hours ago while watching TV" |
| **L**ocation | Anatomic location and radiation | "Substernal, radiating to left arm" |
| **D**uration | How long the symptom has lasted | "Constant for 2 hours, not relieved by rest" |
| **C**haracter | Quality of the symptom | "Pressure-like, heavy sensation" |
| **A**ggravating | What makes it worse | "Worse with exertion, deep breathing" |
| **R**elieving | What makes it better | "Partially relieved by sitting forward" |
| **T**iming | Pattern, frequency, progression | "First episode, progressively worsening" |
| **S**everity | Quantified on appropriate scale | "8/10 on numeric rating scale" |

### Associated Symptoms
Document pertinent positives AND negatives relevant to the differential diagnosis.
- For chest pain: "Associated with diaphoresis and nausea. Denies dyspnea, palpitations, syncope, fever, cough, leg swelling."

### ROS (Review of Systems)
- Under 2021 E/M guidelines, ROS is no longer required for code-level selection but remains valuable for clinical completeness and medicolegal protection.
- Document at minimum the system(s) relevant to the chief complaint plus pertinent negatives.

---

## Step 2: Physical Examination Documentation

### Examination Scope by Complaint Complexity

Under 2021 E/M guidelines, the exam does not determine code level, but documentation must support the clinical decision-making.

**Required elements for every ED encounter:**
- General appearance (toxic vs. non-toxic, degree of distress)
- Vital signs with time (including repeat vitals)
- System-specific exam pertinent to chief complaint

**High-risk documentation practices for examination:**
- Always document mental status (alert, oriented × 4, appropriate)
- For abdominal complaints: document bowel sounds, tenderness location, peritoneal signs (rebound, guarding, rigidity)
- For neuro complaints: document GCS components, pupil size/reactivity, motor/sensory symmetry, cerebellar function
- For chest pain: document cardiac exam (rate, rhythm, murmurs), lung exam (bilateral, clear), and peripheral vascular (pulses, edema)
- Document re-examinations with times — "Re-examined at [TIME]: abdomen now with guarding in RLQ"

---

## Step 3: Medical Decision-Making (MDM) — 2021 E/M Framework

MDM is now the primary driver of ED E/M code level. Three components are assessed; the code level is determined by the highest level where at least two of three components are met.

### MDM Component 1: Number and Complexity of Problems

| Level | Problems | Examples |
|-------|----------|---------|
| Straightforward (99281-82) | 1 self-limited or minor problem | URI, simple laceration, minor sprain |
| Low (99283) | 2+ self-limited problems OR 1 acute uncomplicated illness | UTI, ankle fracture, simple cellulitis |
| Moderate (99284) | 1 acute illness with systemic symptoms OR acute complicated injury | Pneumonia, kidney stone with vomiting, fracture requiring reduction |
| High (99285) | 1 acute illness posing threat to life or function | ACS, stroke, sepsis, pulmonary embolism, acute surgical abdomen |

### MDM Component 2: Data Reviewed and Ordered

| Level | Data Requirements |
|-------|-------------------|
| Straightforward | Minimal or no data |
| Low | Order or review lab/imaging OR review prior records/history |
| Moderate | Order AND review tests OR independent interpretation of imaging OR discussion with external physician |
| High | Independent interpretation of tests + discussion with external physician or multidisciplinary team |

### MDM Component 3: Risk of Complications, Morbidity, or Mortality

| Level | Risk |
|-------|------|
| Straightforward | Minimal risk of morbidity |
| Low | Low risk (OTC drugs, minor surgery, PT) |
| Moderate | Prescription drug management, decision for minor surgery, IV fluids |
| High | Drug therapy requiring intensive monitoring, decision for major surgery, decision not to resuscitate |

**Document each component explicitly in the MDM section:**
```
MDM: This [age] [sex] presents with [chief complaint]. The differential includes [list].
Data reviewed: [labs, imaging, prior records, outside physician discussion].
Assessment: [working diagnosis with supporting evidence].
Risk: [specific risk factors — e.g., "acute MI cannot be excluded, risk of death"].
Plan: [treatment, disposition, follow-up].
```

---

## Step 4: Procedures, Reassessments, and Disposition

### Procedure Documentation (for each procedure performed)
- Indication
- Informed consent (or why not obtained — emergency)
- Timeout performed
- Technique (prep, anesthesia, approach, findings)
- Complications (or "no immediate complications")
- Post-procedure assessment

### Reassessment Documentation
- Document at least one reassessment for any patient receiving treatment
- Include response to interventions (pain improvement, vital sign changes)
- Time-stamp all reassessments
- For observation patients: document reassessment at protocol intervals

### Disposition Documentation Requirements

| Disposition | Required Documentation |
|-------------|----------------------|
| Discharge | Diagnosis, condition at discharge, medications prescribed, follow-up instructions, return precautions, patient understanding confirmed |
| Admission | Admitting diagnosis, attending physician name, bed assignment, pending results, handoff communication |
| Transfer | EMTALA compliance documentation, accepting physician/facility, reason for transfer, risks/benefits discussed, patient consent |
| AMA | Capacity assessment, risks explained, understanding documented, follow-up offered, AMA form signed |
| Death | Time of death, pronouncement, family notification, medical examiner notification criteria, organ donation screening |

---

## Step 5: Medicolegal Documentation Best Practices

- **Document shared decision-making:** "Discussed risks of discharge vs. admission with patient. Patient expressed understanding and preference for discharge with 24-hour follow-up."
- **Time-stamp critical actions:** first physician contact, ECG interpretation, medication administration, consultant arrival, disposition decision
- **Document what you considered and why you ruled it out:** "PE considered but Wells score of 1 and negative D-dimer effectively exclude PE (sensitivity >99%)"
- **Document non-compliance or refusal:** "Patient refused CT scan after risks and benefits discussed. Informed of potential missed diagnosis. Patient verbalized understanding."
- **Avoid late addendums** that contradict real-time documentation — if addendum is necessary, clearly state the reason and timing

---

## Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Alignment (Mandatory)

1. Does the chief complaint match the documented HPI, exam, and MDM assessment?
2. Is the MDM complexity level supported by the documented number of problems, data reviewed, and risk assessment?
3. Are pertinent negatives documented for each diagnosis on the differential?
4. Is the disposition rationale clearly stated with follow-up instructions and return precautions?
5. Are all time-critical actions time-stamped (ECG, medications, consults, disposition)?

---

## Quality Audit

- [ ] Chief complaint documented in patient's own words
- [ ] HPI includes onset, location, duration, character, and severity at minimum
- [ ] Pertinent positives and negatives documented for the chief complaint differential
- [ ] Physical exam documents general appearance, vital signs, and complaint-specific systems
- [ ] MDM explicitly addresses complexity of problems, data reviewed, and risk level
- [ ] Differential diagnosis is documented (not just the final diagnosis)
- [ ] All procedures include indication, consent, technique, and complications
- [ ] At least one reassessment documented for any treatment administered
- [ ] Disposition documentation includes diagnosis, instructions, and follow-up plan
- [ ] Return precautions given and documented in patient's language
- [ ] Critical times documented (physician contact, ECG, labs resulted, disposition)
- [ ] Medical decision-making supports the billed E/M level
- [ ] Advance directive status addressed for high-acuity patients
- [ ] All diagnostic results addressed in the note (no orphaned lab values)
- [ ] Attending attestation completed for resident or APP notes

---

## Guidelines

1. Document in real time whenever possible — retrospective documentation introduces recall errors and raises medicolegal questions about timing accuracy.
2. Every diagnostic test ordered must have its result addressed in the note — "orphaned" lab values (ordered but never referenced in MDM) are a common plaintiff attorney target.
3. Use the 2021 E/M MDM framework explicitly in your note structure — this replaces the prior documentation volume-based coding and allows more concise, clinically focused notes.
4. Document shared decision-making for any non-straightforward disposition — this is both best clinical practice and strong medicolegal protection.
5. Always document who provided the history and their relationship to the patient — third-party historians affect clinical reliability assessment.
6. For bounce-back visits (return within 72 hours), explicitly document what changed since the prior visit and why the prior workup was or was not sufficient.
7. Return precautions must be specific to the diagnosis, not generic — "return if chest pain recurs or you develop shortness of breath" is defensible; "return if worse" is not.
8. Never use copy-forward for physical exam findings — each encounter requires a freshly performed and independently documented examination.