When Documentation Tries Too Hard
Article Reference Code: NAMAS.01.23.2026
Written by: Shannon O. DeConda, CPC, CPMA, CEMA, CEMC, CPA-EDU
There is an interesting moment that happens in the course of conduction an audit. You open the note. You start reading. You think, “Okay, we’re off to a strong start.” But then, something shifts. The further you read, the more it starts to feel… like too much. The documentation is packed to the brim. Every lab result ever ordered is present. Every prior diagnosis is listed. There is a paragraph on family history when the service is based on medical decision making. And suddenly, it hits you. This documentation is trying too hard.
Let me be clear. Most providers mean well. They want to document appropriately. But sometimes their efforts to be thorough cross the line into over-documentation. That can create confusion, misrepresent the actual service provided, and even raise compliance concerns.
Let’s break down three common examples of when documentation tries too hard, and how both the auditor and the educator should handle it.
The “Data Dump” Dilemma
We have all seen it. Notes that list every test the patient has had in the last year, whether it was ordered today or not. There is no interpretation. No analysis. Just a list. It is a classic case of documentation inflation.
♦ For the Auditor: Your job is to go back to guidance. Was the data reviewed and analyzed as part of today’s encounter? Was there any commentary on the significance of that information to the current visit? If not, it does not support medical decision making. Do not give credit just because something is there. We are scoring effort, not volume. You may need to clearly annotate this in your audit summary to explain the scoring decision, especially when the provider may assume that more data equates to higher complexity.
◊ For the Educator: Use this as a teaching opportunity. Sit with the provider and pull up the documentation. Ask them what they were trying to communicate. Then explain what the documentation conveys from an audit perspective. Help them understand that listing prior results without context doesn’t increase credit. Explain that if a test result was relevant, and if it guided today’s decisions, this should be included in the documentation. That is what makes it score.
Copy-Paste Chaos
Templates can be useful. But over-reliance on them turns into copy-paste chaos. Notes start to contradict themselves. Yesterday’s assessments appear in today’s encounter. And it becomes nearly impossible to determine what was unique to the date of service.
♦ For the Auditor: Watch for inconsistencies. Look for references that do not match. If the plan references symptoms “last week” that were supposedly just reported today, that is a red flag. You do not have to question clinical care, but you do have to protect the integrity of the record. In your findings, remain objective and factual. Use language like “identical verbiage from previous dates of service noted” rather than assigning motive. That keeps your reporting professional and defensible.
◊ For the Educator: Start by addressing the why. Most providers use templates to save time. But they need to understand the risk that comes with reuse of pasted documentation. Bring real examples. This allows you to show how copy-paste can make documentation look inaccurate or even in some cases, fraudulent. Then offer to help them revise their templates. Recommend building them with prompts or blanks that require fresh input. Emphasize that efficiency should never come at the cost of clarity.
Over-Explaining Simple Encounters
Sometimes documentation includes an elaborate history, multiple paragraphs of exam findings, and a long-winded assessment for a patient with seasonal allergies. When the complexity of the note outweighs the complexity of the visit, that can be a problem. Why? Because it creates a mismatch between documentation and the complexity of the presenting problem. Over-documenting simple encounters may give the impression that the service was more involved than it truly was. This not only confuses coding and auditing but could open the door to payer scrutiny for allegations of upcoding even if unintentional.
♦ For the Auditor: Review the presenting problem, the plan of care, and the risk. Does the documentation for each of these areas match in complexity and tone throughout the encounter? If not, the coding level needs to reflect the actual work done. Be specific in your feedback. Consider feedback that conveys, “While the documentation is detailed, the presenting problem and management reflect low complexity.”
◊ For the Educator: This is a mindset shift. Some providers feel they need to “over-justify” even simple visits. They worry they will be under-coded or denied. Reassure them that documentation should be proportional. Teach them how to support medical necessity clearly, even in low-level visits. Let them know it is okay to keep it simple, as long as the documentation tells the story of the encounter, cleanly and accurately.
When documentation tries too hard, it tends to lose credibility, and when that happens, it can raise denials, trigger payer audits, and erode trust. As professionals tasked with both auditing and education, we need to guide providers back to the foundation by reminding them documentation is not about putting on a show. Documentation is about detailing the patient transaction clearly, efficiently, and in a way that supports the care provided. As auditors, we ensure compliance. As educators, we ensure understanding.
When we work together to set the standard, documentation improves, compliance strengthens, and everyone wins.
Ready to strengthen your audit accuracy and provider education? NAMAS is ready when you are!
Shannon O. DeConda, President & Founder of NAMAS, a division of DoctorsManagement & VP of Regulatory Compliance at DoctorsManagement
With over 25 years of experience in coding, auditing, and compliance, she’s been instrumental in shaping how healthcare professionals understand documentation, regulatory standards, and audit accuracy. Shannon is the original developer of the CPMA credential and continues to lead national education efforts through NAMAS, where she specializes in turning complex compliance topics into practical, easy-to-apply strategies.
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.
