This week, as we continue to explore querying for acute (metabolic or toxic) encephalopathy, I want to examine the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) as a clinical indicator for encephalopathy.
I know many consultants encourage this approach, but I hope to convince you that this is an outdated practice, and could contribute to clinical validation denials. As mentioned last week, there is not a widely accepted definition for metabolic or toxic encephalopathy. However, of all the definitions that I reviewed for my article, as confirmed by an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven search, I did not find any that incorporated the GCS.
Let’s begin with a discussion about the GSC. It is a universal tool used to quantify a patient’s level of consciousness on a scale from 3 to 15, wherein 15 represents normal consciousness and anything less than 8 indicates severe impairment, such as a coma or the inability to protect one’s airway. It is primarily used in patients who have suffered a traumatic brain injury. The GCS was designed to assess a patient’s level of consciousness, which is different from assessing if they are experiencing altered mental status, a component of acute encephalopathy.
The GCS is composed of three subscales: eye opening, verbal responsiveness, and motor responsiveness. A score of 13 to 15 indicates mild brain injury. Patients with a lower GCS score have an increased risk of mortality after a head injury.
Assessing the best verbal response should be determined through conversation with the patient. The assessor should avoid questions that evaluate the patient’s long-term memory by asking personal questions like their name or date of birth. More appropriate questions to ask include the following:
A person who answers questions correctly but is confused in the conversation is not oriented. Additionally, the person must be able to respond appropriately in complete sentences to be oriented. Many studies report subjectivity in the scoring of the coma scale due to inadequate training on how to properly administer and score the assessment.
Acute encephalopathy is likely to only be reflected in the verbal subscale, resulting in a GCS score in the range of 13-14. Because this score is so close to 15, which represents normal consciousness, payors may challenge the clinical validity of acute encephalopathy if they lack understanding of its limitation for use in patients without a head injury. Due to this lack of sensitivity, including the coma score or the verbal subscale is unlikely to persuade an auditor that acute encephalopathy is clinically supported.
Between fiscal years 2016 and 2020, coding guidelines allowed the GCS to “be used in conjunction with traumatic brain injury codes, acute cerebrovascular disease or sequelae of cerebrovascular disease codes.” The GCS may also be used to assess the status of the central nervous system for other non-trauma conditions, such as monitoring patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) regardless of medical condition. This guidance likely contributed to its use as clinical evidence for encephalopathy.
Another contributor to the use of GCS as an indicator of acute encephalopathy is its inclusion within Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria for identifying severe sepsis/sepsis with organ failure. The GCS is included as a measure of altered mental status. There is such a high correlation between sepsis and encephalopathy that many AI-driven clinical documentation integrity (CDI) tools use clinical indicators of sepsis to predict encephalopathy.
A 2013 article, Understanding Brain Dysfunction in Sepsis (Sonneville et. al), states that “sepsis-associated encephalopathy is characterized by acute changes in mental status, cognition, alteration of sleep/wake cycle, disorientation, impaired attention, and/or disorganized thinking. Sometimes exaggerated motor activity with agitation, and/or hallucinations can be observed, and agitation and somnolence can occur alternatively.”
This description further explains why the GCS is of limited value even in the encephalopathic septic patient, since only those who are somnolent are likely to have a score below 14.
The value of the GCS is in identifying and assessing the severity of acute encephalopathy, once it affects alertness and consciousness. Although earlier studies found one-third of patients with sepsis had a GCS of < 12, a 2024 article, SOFA in sepsis: with or without GCS (Wang, L. et al.), found that the use of SOFA without GCS did not affect the predictability of ICU mortality associated with sepsis.
The bottom line is that a GCS score of 15 does not exclude the diagnosis of acute encephalopathy. A patient can be awake with a high coma score, but still be profoundly confused (or in terms of coding, encephalopathic).Therefore, use of the GCS can be an adjunct to help monitor and communicate patient status, but it should not be considered a definitive clinical indicator.
Healthcare compliance just got a lot more complicated. We’re not dealing with traditional whistleblowers anymore – the ones who needed inside access to spot problems.
We’ve trained ourselves to audit documentation, audit codes, audit teams – but now we need to ensure we have added something else to the list:
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more
Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
