You’re spot on that WISeR isn’t really “a mobile wound care thing.” If you’re billing 15271, you’re in the lane where utilization patterns and documentation quality get scrutinized, no matter whether you’re podiatry, primary care, or a dedicated wound center. For anyone trying to get ahead of this, I think the practical shift is moving from “we did the procedure” documentation to “a reviewer can follow the story without guessing” documentation. That usually comes down to a few consistent habits: - Make medical necessity obvious in plain language: what failed, for how long, and why a skin substitute is appropriate now (not just eventually). - Tie timing to the clinical picture: what changed that justifies moving to advanced therapy at this visit. - Remove ambiguity in the procedure details: wound measurements, product used, how it was applied/secured, and anything that would explain utilization if someone looked back months later. - Make the chart internally consistent: what’s in the note, the order, the photo/wound assessment, and the billing all line up. On the Medipyxis side, this is exactly the kind of thing we want to bake into the “auto-coding” experience without making clinicians feel like they’re doing extra work. The direction we’re moving in is a guided workflow that quietly enforces defensibility: - A 15271-ready documentation pathway that only appears when the visit context supports it (wound type/stage, prior conservative care captured, timing signals, etc.). - Real-time prompts that catch the common gaps before the note is signed (missing measurements, unclear rationale, missing prior-treatment timeline, mismatched product details). - A payer/LCD-aware checklist that’s practice-configurable, so teams aren’t guessing what “defensible” means for their situation. - An “audit packet” output that compiles the key proof points into a clean summary for retrospective review, instead of hunting through notes. Curious what others are seeing as the biggest failure point with 15271 documentation right now. Is it usually the medical necessity narrative, the timing rationale, or the procedure/product specifics not being captured consistently?

Hey everyone!Just joined and already loving the energy here. I’m excited to be part of a community that’s truly shaping the future of mobile wound medicine. A little about me — I’m passionate about building systems that make wound care smarter, faster, and more accessible for both clinicians and patients. Collaboration and innovation are where I live, so I’m looking forward to learning from all of you and hopefully sharing a few insights of my own along the way. If you see me around, say hey! I’m here to grow, contribute, and connect with others who believe mobile wound care is the next frontier in healing. Let’s make a difference together. 💪🏽

@Kevin Carlberg Cool! Where are you at?