Don’t Talk Code to Me: How to Communicate Audit Findings Without Triggering
Defensiveness
Article Reference Code: NAMAS.06.12.2026
Written by: Monteal Martin, CPMA, CPC, CCE, COBGC, CRCR, RHIT
To effectively communicate with clinicians, the approach should be grounded in respect, clarity, and data. As auditors and compliance professionals, our job is not just to find the gaps, it is to deliver findings in a way that leads to change. That starts with how we show up in the room. This is not about minimizing issues, but about establishing credibility and demonstrating a balanced, fair assessment.
Start with what is working
Before you lead with problems, lead with data. Identify what the provider is doing well and say it out loud, not as a warm-up, but as a real, objective observation. This is not flattery. It is credibility. When providers see that your assessment is balanced and grounded in evidence, they are far more likely to trust what comes next. A provider who feels seen is a provider who is ready to listen.
Focus on what matters most
Audit findings can pile up quickly, but throwing every issue on the table at once is a guaranteed way to lose the room. Prioritize. Choose two or three findings that carry the most weight. Whether that is impact on documentation quality, coding accuracy, or
reimbursement, and build your conversation around those. Use real examples pulled from the data, de-identified and presented clearly. When providers can see themselves in the findings, the feedback lands differently.
Speak their language
This is where most audit conversations break down. The moment you lead with a code, you have lost half the room. Clinicians think in diagnoses, treatment decisions, and patient complexity, not ICD-10CM or CPT codes. Translate your findings into that language. Instead of referring to what code was assigned, talk about whether the documentation clearly reflects the condition, the level of decision-making, and the care that was delivered. That is the conversation clinicians are trained to have. Meet them there.
Leave them with something they can use
Identifying a gap without offering a path forward is an incomplete audit. Providers should walk away from the conversation knowing exactly what is expected and how to get there. That might mean sharing a documentation tip, referencing a specific guideline, or giving a concrete example of what compliant documentation looks like. Position yourself as a resource, not a referee. The goal is not enforcement, it is improvement.
When these conversations are handled well, something shifts. Providers stop defending and start asking questions. That is the moment collaboration begins. The audit is not the end of the story. It is the starting point for something better.
References
American Medical Association. (2023). CPT® professional edition. AMA. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). Evaluation and Management Services Guide.
https://www.cms.gov Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting. https://www.cms.gov
Contact Monteal LinkedIn by Clicking her Name Below:
Monteal Martin, CPMA, CPC, CCE, COBGC, CRCR, RHIT
Monteal Martin is a healthcare auditing, coding, and compliance professional with expertise in operational risk assessment, documentation integrity, and regulatory compliance. As the founder of Insight Coding & Compliance Professionals (ICCP), she helps healthcare organizations transform audit findings into meaningful, measurable improvements through risk-based auditing, root cause analysis, and strategic corrective action planning. Monteal is a respected educator, author, and speaker who is passionate about strengthening compliance programs, supporting coding and CDI initiatives, and empowering healthcare professionals through practical education. Her collaborative approach bridges compliance, coding, clinical documentation, and provider education to promote defensible documentation, operational excellence, and sustainable organizational success
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.
