Build-A-Bot: Tools I Created or Customized to Help Me Audit Smarter
Article Reference Code: NAMAS.06.26.2026
Written by: Christine Hall
When I first started in healthcare, we did not have fancy dashboards, AI assistants, or automation tools. We had paper reports, highlighters, sticky notes, and a whole lot of determination. Over the years, I learned that one of the biggest challenges in auditing is not understanding the changing rules but managing the increasing volume of work.
Let me explain, customized auditors today are expected to review documentation faster, identify risk trends earlier, educate providers more effectively, and still maintain accuracy. Add changing payer rules, evolving payer guidance, and increasing compliance scrutiny, and it becomes clear very quickly that working harder is not always working smarter.
That realization pushed me to start building tools and customized workflows to audit more effectively. I jokingly call them my “bots,” but most are not complex programs written by
software engineers. Many are simple processes, templates, prompts, spreadsheets, and automation tools customized around the way I think and work. They save time, reduce repetitive tasks, and allow me to focus my attention where it matters most: critical thinking, provider education, and always compliance risk.
Most auditors spend too much time on repetitive manual tasks.
- Copying guidelines into reports.
- Checking and rechecking modifier rules.
- Endlessly searching for updated payer policies.
- Building and reusing the same education documents over and over.
- Comparing documentation elements against evolving evaluation and management
(E/M) requirements.
None of those tasks requires advanced auditing skills. They require consistency. The real value of an experienced auditor comes from interpretation, pattern recognition, and knowing when something “just doesn’t look right.” Unfortunately, repetitive work can drain the time and mental energy needed for those higher-level skills. That is why I started building tools that handled the repetitive pieces for me.
One of the first tools I created was a customized audit spreadsheet that automatically flagged missing documentation elements. At the time, I was auditing high volumes of E/M encounters. I noticed I was repeatedly checking for the same missing items:
- Unsupported modifier 25 usage
- Incomplete time documentation
- Lack of medical necessity support
- Cloned documentation concerns
- Inconsistent diagnosis specificity
Instead of manually tracking everything in separate notes, I built a spreadsheet using formulas that automatically highlighted risk areas based on my responses.
It was simple. But it changed everything. The spreadsheet reduced review time, improved consistency, and made reporting easier. More importantly, it freed up my attention so I could focus on education and compliance interpretation instead of repetitive tracking. That experience taught me something important. Technology does not need to be complicated
to be effective.
As my consulting and auditing work expanded, I continued creating tools around common workflow frustrations. For example, I created reference systems that linked CPT® guidelines, CMS authority, payer policies, and documentation requirements into one
searchable resource. Instead of opening multiple browser tabs across my three monitors during every audit, I could quickly verify requirements and identify conflicts between payer expectations.
Another essential “Bot” I built is to track tools that organized denials by root cause rather than just payer category. This helps me identify whether problems were tied to documentation, coding, authorization, medical necessity, or workflow breakdowns. Once patterns became visible, education became far more targeted and effective.
One of the most time-consuming parts of auditing is creating provider feedback. I started developing customized education templates that translated audit findings into concise, provider-friendly language. Instead of sending overwhelming compliance reports, I could provide focused education tied directly to workflow improvement. Providers responded much better because the education felt practical instead of punitive.
AI has added another layer to the process. I now use AI-assisted tools to help organize ideas, summarize lengthy payer guidance, compare policy changes, draft educational outlines, and build structured audit workflows. However, there is one important thing I always emphasize, AI should support the auditor not replace the auditor. AI does not understand nuance the way experienced compliance professionals do. It cannot independently evaluate provider intent and follow up with effective queries. It cannot recognize subtle documentation inconsistencies, inaccurate MACRO usage, or fully understand the operational realities of a provider’s medical decision-making. It also cannot
replace ethical judgment.
That is why every tool I create still depends on human oversight. The goal is not to remove the auditor from the process. The goal is to remove unnecessary administrative burden. People often assume automation is mostly about productivity. For me, the biggest benefit was consistency. When auditors are overloaded, small details can be missed. Standardized tools help reduce variability and improve the quality of reviews. They also improve confidence. When you have structured workflows supporting your process, it becomes easier to defend findings, educate providers clearly, and maintain consistency across audits. That consistency is especially important in today’s environment, where audits may later support compliance investigations, appeals, payer disputes, or legal review.
One of the biggest misconceptions about automation is that you need advanced technical skills. You do not. Some of the most effective tools I have created started as:
- Excel spreadsheets
- Smart templates
- Checklists
- Workflow diagrams
- Educational macros
- Audit scoring tools
The key is identifying repetitive tasks that slow you down or create inconsistency. Start there. Ask yourself:
- What task do I repeat every day?
- What process creates the most frustration?
- Where do errors happen most often?
- What information do I constantly search for?
Those pain points often become the best opportunities for smarter systems.
In healthcare, the only constant is CHANGE. Regulations will change. Technology will advance. Documentation requirements will grow more complex. But one thing will remain constant: experienced auditors bring critical thinking and professional judgment that technology cannot replace.
The best tools are not the ones that replace people. They are the ones that support people. For me, building “bots” was never about removing the human side of auditing. It was about creating space for the human side to matter more. And honestly, after more than 30 years in this industry, that may be the smartest tool I ever built.
Contact Christine LinkedIn by Clicking her Name Below:
Christine Hall, BSHM, CHC, CPC, CDEO, CPB, CPMA, CRC, CEMC, CEMA, CPA-TH, CPC-I
Christine Hall is a nationally recognized healthcare compliance consultant, educator, and speaker with more than 30 years of experience in healthcare administration, revenue cycle management, medical coding, auditing, and regulatory compliance. She currently serves on the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), a federal advisory committee that provides guidance and recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services on national health data policy, privacy, and health information standards.
Christine holds a Bachelor of Science in Healthcare Management with a minor in Sociology and is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Healthcare Law at Florida State University, strengthening her expertise at the intersection of healthcare regulation, reimbursement, and medico-legal analysis.
NAMAS BLOG Disclaimer:
The NAMAS Blog features content written by both NAMAS staff and guest contributors. Guest contributors may present opinions or perspectives that differ from those officially instructed or encouraged by NAMAS. We believe in providing space for a range of informed viewpoints to foster dialogue, reflection, and deeper understanding within the auditing and compliance community.
Some contributors may use artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the development of their content. The decision to incorporate AI is left to the discretion of the author and does not reflect an endorsement or directive from NAMAS.
If you have questions, comments, or concerns about a specific blog post, we encourage you to contact the individual author directly. Their name and contact information are provided at the end of each post.
