Audit results often feel like a grade. A percentage. A pass or fail. But when audits are reduced to accuracy scores alone, teams risk missing the deeper insights that make them worth doing in the first place.

In reality, an audit isn’t just a measure of performance—it’s a window into behavior, a reflection of systems, and a blueprint for smarter decision-making. In this post, we’ll explore what coding audits can reveal beyond the numbers and how to interpret findings to guide improvement.

1. Patterns Matter More Than the Percentage

An accuracy rate of 95% might look great on paper. But that remaining 5%? It matters a lot—depending on where those errors land.

• Are they isolated across coders and service lines?
• Do they cluster around a certain DRG, provider, or diagnosis?
• Are they tied to documentation gaps or knowledge gaps?

2. Trending Over Time > One-Time Snapshots

Single audits can be misleading. A coder may have an off month. A provider might adjust how they document. If you’re not reviewing findings over time, you’re only getting part of the story.

Recurring findings—even minor ones—tell you:

• Where a workflow is broken
• Where education isn’t sticking
• Where the documentation needs collaboration, not correction

3. Your Most Frequent Error May Not Be the Most Important

A common trap? Letting volume dictate attention.

It’s easy to zero in on the most frequent errors—missing modifiers, POA flags, sequencing mistakes. But frequency doesn’t always equal impact. A rare DRG shift that costs thousands in reimbursement or affects risk adjustment may warrant more immediate action than a dozen laterality errors.

Prioritize findings by risk and ripple effect, not just count.

4. Audits Can—and Should—Support the Coder Workflow

Too often, audits are viewed as retroactive, disconnected exercises. But when integrated into the coder’s daily process, they become part of a continuous improvement cycle.

When auditors share worksheets as they complete chart reviews, coders can:

• Review findings in real time
• Correct errors before claims are submitted
• Learn from specific cases while the details are still fresh

This approach not only strengthens coder understanding—it helps avoid delays in billing and reduces rework downstream.

Many teams are adopting tools that streamline this communication. For example, Atom Audit includes a dedicated coder workflow feature as part of its collaboration tools, allowing coders to receive, review, and respond to audit findings directly—keeping everything in one place and ensuring no time is lost between review and resolution.

5. Great Audit Teams Ask “Why,” Not Just “What”

The best use of audit results isn’t just identifying what went wrong—but digging into why it went wrong.

• Did the coder have enough documentation?
• Was the guideline misunderstood or unclear?
• Did the system or software contribute to the issue?

Auditing should be less about catching errors and more about understanding them. That’s where true process improvement begins.

Final Thoughts

Audit reports don’t have to be punitive or passive. They can be the clearest lens into coder education needs, provider documentation habits, and system-level inefficiencies—if teams take the time to analyze more than the top-line numbers.

Platforms like Atom Audit make this kind of analysis easier—helping teams visualize patterns, spot trends over time, and prioritize follow-up where it matters most.