Clinical Documentation Integrity (CDI) Leader

$84/hrrate as listed

Review AI-generated documentation improvement suggestions, physician queries, and coding recommendations for clinical accuracy and compliance with AHIMA/ACDIS and Official Coding Guidelines. Mercor places CDI managers and leaders with an AI research lab building tools for inpatient and outpatient documentation workflows; observed pay is $84/hr.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You will spend most of your time reading AI outputs against real clinical scenarios and judging whether they hold up. That means assessing whether a model-drafted physician query is compliant or leading, whether a suggested diagnosis is supported by the documented clinical indicators, whether a proposed DRG shift correctly applies CC/MCC hierarchies, and whether an HCC capture recommendation would survive audit. Alongside pass/fail judgments, you write structured rationales — the reasoning is the deliverable, not the verdict. Some tasks ask you to rewrite a weak AI query into a compliant one, or to rank several model responses against each other and explain the ordering.

What the screening measures

Mercor's process is an AI-led interview plus resume verification. Expect the screen to probe past the summary line on your CV: which facility types, whether you ran concurrent or retrospective review, what your CC/MCC capture and query response rates actually were, and how you handled a physician who pushed back. Follow-up questions get specific fast — naming MS-DRG methodology is not the same as walking through a sepsis versus SIRS documentation conflict and its DRG consequence. Credential claims (CCDS, CDIP, RN, RHIA, CCS) are checked, and clarity of written English matters because your annotations become training signal.

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous; you pick up task batches rather than holding shift coverage.
Typical commitments run 10–20 hours per week, though volume fluctuates with project phase and some contributors are offered more.
Work is contract-based and paid hourly; $84/hr is the observed rate for this listing and is not guaranteed across projects or seniority levels.
Expect an onboarding calibration round where your judgments are compared against reviewer consensus before you scale up.

What they look for

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you have at least 5 years of clinical documentation integrity or improvement experience, with at least 2 years in a manager or leadership role?
CDI leadership experience · required
Do you have demonstrated expertise in MS-DRG methodology, CC/MCC hierarchies, and ICD-10-CM/PCS coding guidelines?
MS-DRG and coding knowledge · required
Can you demonstrate expertise in physician query management per AHIMA and ACDIS compliant query standards?
Physician query expertise · required
Do you have hands-on proficiency with at least one of the following CDI software platforms: 3M, Nuance, Optum360, or equivalent?
CDI software platform proficiency · preferred
Do you hold a CCDS (Certified Clinical Documentation Specialist) or CDIP (Clinical Documentation Improvement Practitioner) credential?
Clinical documentation certification · preferred
Do you hold a clinical or coding credential such as RN, RHIA, CCS, or equivalent?
Clinical or coding credential · preferred

0 of 6 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether the candidate has genuinely held a leadership role in CDI (not just contributed to one), can articulate program scope and metrics, and understands what moves the needle in documentation integrity.
A strong answer: Names the setting (inpatient/outpatient), describes concurrent and/or retrospective workflows they oversaw, specifies 2–3 KPIs they tracked (query response rate, CC/MCC capture, case mix index, DRG accuracy), and points to a concrete outcome—e.g., 'increased HCC capture by 8% over 18 months' or 'reduced query turnaround from 10 to 5 days.'
Where people lose it: Describes only individual CDI work or case review, not leadership or program management; vague on metrics ('improved documentation' without numbers); or conflates CDI with coding or billing.