Articles and Blogs

Same Patient, Different Story – The Impact of Clinical Documentation

Written by Sophie De'Ambrosis | 12 April 2026 10:31:36 PM

Using Simulation-Based Workshops to Teach Junior Doctors About Clinical Documentation Improvement

Education remains one of the most powerful tools available to Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) teams. While presentations and written resources are helpful, many clinicians learn most effectively when they can actively engage with real-world scenarios.

Education that focuses solely on rules, definitions, or coding frameworks often struggles to create lasting behaviour change.

The challenge is not a lack of clinical knowledge.
Clinicians often understand exactly what is happening with their patients.

The challenge is translation.

Clinical reasoning does not automatically become documented truth - and the healthcare system can only act on what is explicitly written.

At the CDI 2026 Conference, Dr Joe Vincent and I presented a workshop titled “Same Patient, Different Story – The Impact of Clinical Documentation.” This session explored how simulation-style education can be used to the make this gap visible, helping junior doctors understand the direct impact their documentation has on coded outcomes, reported complexity, funding and ultimately, how the system understands the patient.

The workshop centred around a simple but powerful concept: the patient does not change, the care provided does not change - but the story the system sees can change dramatically depending on the quality and specificity of documentation.

Why Simulation Works for CDI Education

Junior doctors are already familiar with simulation-based learning from medical school and early clinical training. Applying this same learning style to documentation makes the education immediately relatable and practical.

Rather than teaching coding rules or documentation theory in isolation, this workshop model allows participants to:

    • Work through a realistic patient scenario
    • Identify gaps in clinical documentation by interpreting clinical information based only on what is written
    • See how documentation translates into coded data
    • Understand how specificity changes coded outcomes
    • Recognise the broader impact on hospital reporting and funding

This creates a critical moment of cognitive dissonance - where clinicians recognise that what they understood is not necessarily what the system can see. That moment is what drives learning.

The Workshop Structure

The workshop was designed to be interactive and sequential, allowing participants to build understanding step-by-step and see how the same patient could generate very different interpretations and outcomes depending on how their story was documented.

Step 1: Present the Clinical Scenario

Participants were provided with clinical notes from a real patient scenario containing intentionally incomplete or ambiguous documentation.

The case itself was clinically accurate but lacked the level of detail required for reliable interpretation.

Participating clinicians are asked to review the documentation and answer structured questions about the patient, such as:

    • What are the patient’s diagnoses?
    • How unwell is this patient?
    • How complex was this patient?

This step highlights an important reality: clinicians do not all interpret the same documentation in the same way.

Variation emerges - not because clinicians lack knowledge, but because the documentation does not consistently communicate the clinical story.

Step 2: Reveal the Codes Based on Poor Documentation

Once participants had formed their clinical understanding of the patient, the next step was to reveal the codes generated from the incomplete documentation.

This is often a powerful moment in the session, where the concept of “same patient, different story” becomes immediately visible.

Participants typically observed that:

    • The coded diagnoses did not reflect the clinical complexity
    • Key conditions were missing
    • The patient appears less complex than they actually were

At this point, the gap becomes explicit:

The participants understood the patient - but the system did not.

Step 3: Improve the Documentation

Participants were then asked to rewrite sections of the documentation, focusing on improving clarity and specificity to better reflect the clinical scenario.

Rather than introducing numerous rules, the session focused on a small number of high-impact principles:

    • Using clear and specific diagnostic language
    • Explicitly documenting complications
    • Avoiding ambiguous terminology
    • Linking conditions using causal language such as “due to”

The phrase “due to” was emphasised not as a documentation rule, but as a mechanism for making clinical reasoning visible - connecting observations, diagnoses, and management decisions into a coherent narrative.

This stage shifts the exercise from passive recognition to active translation.

Step 4: Show the Updated Coding Outcomes

After the documentation had been rewritten, participants were shown the updated codes that would now be applied based on the improved documentation.

They could immediately see:

    • Additional diagnoses captured
    • Clinical severity was more accurately represented
    • Alignment between the clinical story and coded output
    • Changes in activity classification and funding became visible

The key insight is reinforced:

Nothing about the patient changed - only the way the story was documented.

Practical Considerations for CDI Teams

For teams interested in introducing simulation-style CDI education, the following strategies can help support successful implementation.

1. Use Realistic Clinical Cases

Select genuine patient scenarios that reflect common documentation challenges within your organisation. Cases with multiple diagnoses, complications, or unclear causal relationships often provide strong learning opportunities.

2. Start With Documentation That Contains Gaps

The learning impact depends on demonstrating how missing detail affects interpretation of the patient’s story.

Choose cases where:

    • Diagnoses are implied but not clearly stated
    • Complications are present but not linked
    • Specificity is lacking
    • Clinical complexity is not fully captured

These gaps create the conditions for meaningful discussion.

3. Collaborate With Coding Teams

Partnering with clinical coders or HIM professionals is essential for generating accurate coding comparisons.

This collaboration ensures:

    • The initial coding reflects real-world practice
    • The revised coding demonstrates meaningful differences
    • Funding or classification changes are accurate

Working together also strengthens relationships between CDI and coding teams.

4. Focus on Key Documentation Principles

Rather than overwhelming participants with multiple rules, emphasise a small number of high-impact techniques, such as:

    • Using clear diagnostic language
    • Linking conditions using “due to”
    • Documenting complications explicitly
    • Recording relevant specificity

These are the elements that translate clinical reasoning into system-recognisable data. Repetition of these principles across cases helps reinforce behaviour change.

5. Make the Impact Visible

One of the most powerful aspects of this approach is showing how documentation changes affect outcomes.

Where possible, include:

    • Side-by-side coding comparisons
    • Changes in activity classification
    • Funding or resource implications
    • Differences in reported complexity

Seeing the consequences of documentation decisions strengthens retention and motivation.

6. Keep the Session Interactive

Encourage discussion, group work, and clinical reasoning throughout the session.

Interactive formats:

    • Improve engagement
    • Encourage peer learning
    • Promote reflective thinking
    • Increase knowledge retention

Passive learning alone rarely produces sustained change.

7. Embed Within Existing Training Structures

Integrating CDI education into established teaching environments—such as orientation, protected teaching time, or clinical workshops—supports sustainability and uptake.

Moving From Awareness to Behaviour Change

Effective CDI education is not about explaining documentation standards or teaching clinicians how to code. It is about making clinical reasoning visible - and showing when it is not.

When clinicians recognise that gap for themselves, behaviour begins to shift.

Because ultimately:

The patient did not change.
The clinical care did not change.
The documentation did.

And that changed how the patient was understood...
by the next clinician,
by the organisation,
and by the system itself.

Workshops such as this move beyond awareness by making this relationship explicit. They demonstrate, in real terms, how documentation shapes coded data, reported complexity, and healthcare reporting.

For CDI teams seeking to deepen clinician engagement, this approach offers a practical and scalable way to translate insight into action - and to support meaningful, sustained improvement in documentation practice.