Artificial intelligence is accelerating change across the healthcare industry, and one area drawing particular attention is clinical coding. AI-assisted coding and computer-assisted coding (CAC) systems are increasingly promoted as the solution to longstanding challenges around data quality, coder shortages, and administrative burden. Yet despite their promise, one fundamental truth in healthcare has not changed: no AI system can produce accurate coded data without clear, specific, and complete clinical documentation. This is reinforced in Australia’s 2025 Clinical Coding AI Adoption Guideline, which emphasises that while AI offers significant potential, its effectiveness is entirely dependent on strong documentation and adherence to established clinical coding frameworks and governance structures.
Over the past several years, health services across Australia and abroad have started to invest in CAC technologies with the expectation that automation will reduce errors and simplify coding. But this expectation is built on a misunderstanding of what these systems actually do. CAC tools do not generate diagnoses. AI does not interpret clinical reasoning. Neither replaces the clinician as the author of the patient story or the coder’s role in ensuring that story is accurately translated into standardised codes. Instead, AI amplifies the quality of what is already present in the clinical record. When documentation is strong, AI can dramatically enhance efficiency. When documentation is weak, AI can magnify the problem.
Coders Code Only What Is Documented – Not What Is Meant
Clinical coding is frequently mischaracterised as a form of interpretation, but in reality it is a process of translation. Clinicians interpret the patient’s condition and document their diagnostic decisions in the medical record. Coders, bound by strict standards and ethical guidelines, are required to assign codes only from what is explicitly documented. They are prohibited from inferring, assuming, or diagnosing. If a diagnostic statement is incomplete, unclear, or entirely absent, a coder cannot and must not attempt to fill in the gaps.
This principle is not unique to Australia; it is consistent across international coding frameworks. The entire coded dataset of a health service depends on the accuracy, specificity, and completeness of clinician documentation at the point of care. The Australian Guideline reiterates that clinical documentation integrity forms the foundation of the four-stage clinical coding process and remains the critical first step upon which all subsequent coding tasks depend.
AI Does Not Solve Documentation Problems – It Inherits Them
Despite rapid advances in natural language processing, AI-assisted coding systems cannot create the clinical story. They rely entirely on what the clinician has written. When documentation lacks specificity such as the type or acuity of a condition, the causal relationship between diagnoses, or the presence of complications AI tools can only generate suggestions that mirror those gaps.
Evidence from international trials reinforces this limitation. In Scandinavia, a 2025 crossover randomised controlled trial found that although AI tools significantly reduced coding time for complex clinical notes, they did not improve coding accuracy when documentation quality was insufficient.
Poor documentation still resulted in incorrect codes, inaccurate DRGs, unreliable morbidity data, and misaligned funding regardless of whether coding was performed by a human or assisted by AI.
The Australian Guideline similarly warns that AI cannot overcome inconsistent or incomplete documentation and that clinical codes must always be assigned based on factual, documented evidence not probability, inference, or AI-predicted diagnoses. What is not documented simply does not exist in coded data, whether coded by a person or a machine.
AI Works Best When Documentation Is Rich, Clear, and Clinically Precise
The promise of AI is not in replacing coders or bypassing clinical documentation, but in supporting workflows built on strong documentation. When clinician notes are comprehensive, AI can:
These benefits reflect findings from both international research and emerging Australian guidance, which notes that AI systems may streamline aspects of coding but still require human oversight, auditing, and governance to ensure safe, accurate, and standards-compliant outputs.
In short, AI becomes a force multiplier but only when the foundation is sound.
Documentation Quality Shapes Every Corner of the Healthcare System
Accurate coding is essential not only for funding but for quality reporting, risk adjustment, public health surveillance, research, and increasingly for training the next generation of AI models. Clinical documentation is the single point of origin for this entire data ecosystem. When documentation is incomplete, the impact is systemic.
The Australian Guideline highlights that poor data quality impacts safety, funding, reporting, and national statistics and that AI adoption must therefore sit within a broader context of quality assurance, risk management, privacy, security, and clinical governance.
AI Has a Place, But Documentation Will Always Be the Foundation
AI and CAC will continue to evolve and play an increasingly important role in Australian healthcare. But they are not substitutes for clinical clarity. They are tools that rely on it. For AI to succeed, clinicians must continue to document diagnoses specifically and accurately, and coders must continue to apply standards consistently.
The future of coding may be augmented by AI but it will always be anchored in the quality of the clinician’s documentation.
References