FHIR Chat · Da Vinci DEQM Trackers for upcoming DEQM Calls · Da Vinci

Stream: Da Vinci

Topic: Da Vinci DEQM Trackers for upcoming DEQM Calls

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Feb 14 2020 at 05:39):

Jira Issue: Summary, (Reporter)

  1. J#26092: Clarification needeed in incremental reporting section ,(celine_lefebvre)
  2. J#26091: The provider should be notified when data is missing. ,(celine_lefebvre)
  3. J#26090: This vague statement opens the door to consumers receiving much more information than is needed for quality measure reporting.,(celine_lefebvre)
  4. J#26089: It is important for physicians to know which CQMs they are being measured against.,(celine_lefebvre)
  5. J#26088: Are denominator exclusions going to be determined automatically through structured data?,(celine_lefebvre)
  6. J#26087: "Defintion of ""data of interest"" needed, currently it is inconsistent ",(celine_lefebvre)
  7. J#26086: Bulk data exchanges should be based on mutually agreed upon methodolgy or demonstration of relationship ,(celine_lefebvre)
  8. J#26084: How will data consumers communicate data requirements? ,(celine_lefebvre)
  9. J#26083: Only data needed for measure calculation should be submitted. ,(celine_lefebvre)
  10. J#26082: Who is inlcuded in this group? ,(celine_lefebvre)
  11. J#26080: Provider needs to know what data will be pulled ,(celine_lefebvre)
  12. J#26079: We recommend fleshig out the incremental exchange process ,(celine_lefebvre)
  13. J#26077: The AMA suggests adding a little more detail here to explain the negation pattern,(celine_lefebvre)
  14. J#26076: How will these records be stored? ,(celine_lefebvre)
  15. J#26074: """Data of interest"" is too borad and needs to be narrowed ",(celine_lefebvre)
  16. J#26072: May be useful to include the sources of quality measures,(bonnie_briggs)
  17. J#25721: Vendor name and software name/version,(patricia-craig)
  18. J#25719: Need more example use cases,(patricia-craig)
  19. J#25716: Measure report profiles should require id element,(bryn.rhodes)
  20. J#25624: Changes to allow for evaluation of measures by Provider,(sfradkin)
  21. J#25592: Profile requires identifier.type,(craig.newman)
  22. J#25586: "Possible missing ""not"" in Guidance section",(craig.newman)
  23. J#25523: Are measurement period and reporting period synomys?,(javier_espina)

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Feb 14 2020 at 05:45):

Thursdays - 03:00 PM (Eastern Time, GMT -05)
check here for the call details: http://www.hl7.org/concalls/Default.aspx?ref=nav

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Feb 17 2020 at 20:40):

Of these these are from the AMA:

Jira Issue: Summary (Reporter)

  1. J#26092: Clarification needeed in incremental reporting section (celine_lefebvre)
  2. J#26091: The provider should be notified when data is missing. (celine_lefebvre)
  3. J#26090: This vague statement opens the door to consumers receiving much more information than is needed for quality measure reporting. (celine_lefebvre)
  4. J#26089: It is important for physicians to know which CQMs they are being measured against. (celine_lefebvre)
  5. J#26088: Are denominator exclusions going to be determined automatically through structured data? (celine_lefebvre)
  6. J#26087: "Defintion of ""data of interest"" needed, currently it is inconsistent " (celine_lefebvre)
  7. J#26086: Bulk data exchanges should be based on mutually agreed upon methodolgy or demonstration of relationship (celine_lefebvre)
  8. J#26085: which instances would the measure definition not be sufficien? (celine_lefebvre)
  9. J#26084: How will data consumers communicate data requirements? (celine_lefebvre)
  10. J#26083: Only data needed for measure calculation should be submitted. (celine_lefebvre)
  11. J#26082: Who is inlcuded in this group? (celine_lefebvre)
  12. J#26081: Suggest removing this line. (celine_lefebvre)
  13. J#26080: Provider needs to know what data will be pulled (celine_lefebvre)
  14. J#26079: We recommend fleshig out the incremental exchange process (celine_lefebvre)
  15. J#26078: Add Da Vinci guiding principles (celine_lefebvre)
  16. J#26077: The AMA suggests adding a little more detail here to explain the negation pattern (celine_lefebvre)
  17. J#26076: How will these records be stored? (celine_lefebvre)
  18. J#26075: Using common measures acoss payers will reduce development burden for FHIR implementers (celine_lefebvre)
  19. J#26074: """Data of interest"" is too borad and needs to be narrowed " (celine_lefebvre)

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Feb 20 2020 at 18:07):

Tranche A for Discussion: on today's DEQM call 20 February, 2020

JIRA ISSUE Summary (Reporter)

  1. J#26089: It is important for physicians to know which CQMs they are being measured against. (celine_lefebvre)
  2. J#26088: Are denominator exclusions going to be determined automatically through structured data? (celine_lefebvre)
  3. J#26087: "Defintion of ""data of interest"" needed, currently it is inconsistent " (celine_lefebvre)
  4. J#26086: Bulk data exchanges should be based on mutually agreed upon methodolgy or demonstration of relationship (celine_lefebvre)
  5. J#26072: May be useful to include the sources of quality measures (bonnie_briggs)
  6. J#25721: Vendor name and software name/version (patricia-craig)
  7. J#25719: Need more example use cases (patricia-craig)
  8. J#25716: Measure report profiles should require id element (bryn.rhodes)
  9. J#25624: Changes to allow for evaluation of measures by Provider (sfradkin)
  10. J#25592: Profile requires identifier.type (craig.newman)
  11. J#25586: "Possible missing ""not"" in Guidance section" (craig.newman)
  12. J#25523: Are measurement period and reporting period synomys? (javier_espina)

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Mar 06 2020 at 03:03):

(deleted)

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Mar 19 2020 at 20:05):

For Discussion on the 3/20 CQI Call:

Ready for Vote:

Issue Summary(Reporter)

  • J#26091 The provider should be notified when data is missing. (celine_lefebvre)
  • J#26082 Who is inlcuded in this group? (celine_lefebvre)
  • J#26077 The AMA suggests adding a little more detail here to explain the negation pattern (celine_lefebvre)
  • J#26076 How will these records be stored? (celine_lefebvre)
  • J#26072 May be useful to include the sources of quality measures (bonnie_briggs)

To Discuss:

Issue Summary

  • J#26090 This vague statement opens the door to consumers receiving much more information than is needed for quality measure reporting.
  • J#26087 "Defintion of ""data of interest"" needed, currently it is inconsistent "
  • J#26083 Only data needed for measure calculation should be submitted.
  • J#26074 """Data of interest"" is too borad and needs to be narrowed "

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Mar 31 2020 at 17:18):

For Discussion and Vote Week of March 30- April 3

Incremental Updates

Data of Interest

Define Measurement/Reporting/Submission Period

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Apr 02 2020 at 17:18):

Updates to DEQM trackers

15 open DEQM Trackers:

3 in upcoming Block Vote 4

Slated for Discussion on April 3 CQI Call

Jira Issue (Summary) (Reporter) Resolution

  1. J#26613 (fix oid from ITIN to EIN) (ehaas) Persuasive
  2. J#26092 (Clarification needeed in incremental reporting section ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification
  3. J#26090 (This vague statement opens the door to consumers receiving much more information than is needed for quality measure reporting.) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification
  4. J#26089 (It is important for physicians to know which CQMs they are being measured against.) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification
  5. J#26084 (How will data consumers communicate data requirements? ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification
  6. J#26079 (We recommend fleshig out the incremental exchange process ) (celine_lefebvre) Considered for Future Use
  7. J#25721 (Vendor name and software name/version) (patricia-craig) **
  8. J#25523 (Are measurement period and reporting period synomys?) (javier_espina) **

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Apr 02 2020 at 17:42):

Slated for Discussion on April 9 DQM Call

Jira Issue (Summary) (Reporter) Resolution
1. J#26304 (Add Guidance on using contained resources when transacting data) (ehaas) Persuasive - take offline
1. J#26090 (This vague statement opens the door to consumers receiving much more information than is needed for quality measure reporting.) (celine_lefebvre) **
1. J#26089 (It is important for physicians to know which CQMs they are being measured against.) (celine_lefebvre) **

  1. J#26088 (Are denominator exclusions going to be determined automatically through structured data?) (celine_lefebvre) **
  2. J#26076 (How will these records be stored? ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification
  3. J#25624 (Changes to allow for evaluation of measures by Provider) (sfradkin) Persuasive

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Apr 09 2020 at 18:13):

...additional items Slated for Discussion on April 9 DQM Call

review application of J#26087

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Apr 09 2020 at 20:04):

Slated for Discussion on April 16 DEQM Call

Jira Issue (Summary) (Reporter) Resolution

  1. J#26088 (Are denominator exclusions going to be determined automatically through structured data?) (celine_lefebvre)
  2. J#25624 (Changes to allow for evaluation of measures by Provider) (sfradkin) Persuasive

Complete proposal offline before taking to CQI

  1. J#26304 (Add Guidance on using contained resources when transacting data) (ehaas) Persuasive - take offline to completed
  2. J#26092 (Clarification needeed in incremental reporting section ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification
  3. J#26076 (How will these records be stored? ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification - take offline to complete
  4. J#26084 (How will data consumers communicate data requirements? ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification - take offline to complete

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Apr 09 2020 at 22:03):

status 13 open DEQM Trackers:

Slated for Discussion on April 10 CQI Call
Jira Issue (Summary) (Reporter) Resolution

1. J#26084 (How will data consumers communicate data requirements? ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification
1. J#26079 (We recommend fleshig out the incremental exchange process ) (celine_lefebvre) Considered for Future Use
1. J#25721 (Vendor name and software name/version) (patricia-craig) **

  1. J#25523 (Are measurement period and reporting period synomys?) (javier_espina) *

3 in upcoming Block Vote 4 scheduled for April 17 CQI Call

Jira Issue, Summary (Reporter) Resolution

  1. J#21999, CDS Hooks can be used in the screening data. - DEQM #145 (nandini_ganguly) Considered - No action required
  2. J#21993, Data Exchange Interactions are helpful to track history/status of exchange - DEQM #142 (nandini_ganguly) Considered - No action required
  3. J#18672, Show CMS eCQM - DeQM #51 (kpsethi) Persuasive with Modification

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Apr 09 2020 at 22:54):

(deleted)

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Apr 16 2020 at 19:12):

Update- Slated for Discussion scheduled for April 17 CQI Call

3 in Block Vote 4

Jira Issue, Summary (Reporter) Resolution

  1. J#21999, CDS Hooks can be used in the screening data. - DEQM #145 (nandini_ganguly) Considered - No action required
  2. J#21993, Data Exchange Interactions are helpful to track history/status of exchange - DEQM #142 (nandini_ganguly) Considered - No action required
  3. J#18672, Show CMS eCQM - DeQM #51 (kpsethi) Persuasive with Modification

Ready for Vote:
Jira Issue, Summary (Reporter) Resolution

  1. J#25523 (Are measurement period and reporting period synomys?) (javier_espina) *
  2. J#26088 (Are denominator exclusions going to be determined automatically through structured data?) (celine_lefebvre)
  3. J#25624 (Changes to allow for evaluation of measures by Provider) (sfradkin) Persuasive
  4. J#26084 (How will data consumers communicate data requirements? ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (May 22 2020 at 20:18):

Update- Slated for discussion and vote scheduled for may 29 CQI Call

J#26092 (Clarification needeed in incremental reporting section ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification
J#26076 (How will these records be stored? ) (celine_lefebvre) Persuasive with Modification - taken offline to complete

Homework: review the Review of Incremental updates Draft Document

view this post on Zulip Sam Sayer (Jun 25 2020 at 19:52):

These tickets introduced the "extension-submitDataUpdateType" which is required and allows for a type of either "snapshot" or "incremental". What should we use when we have a measure report that isn't being used with submit-data? Do we need a 3rd type?

view this post on Zulip Sam Sayer (Jun 25 2020 at 19:53):

like if I generate a MeasureReport from $evaluate-measure, what should that be?

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Jun 26 2020 at 01:54):

would that use the datax profile too?

view this post on Zulip Sam Sayer (Jun 26 2020 at 12:25):

No, I posted this during my discussion with Paul yesterday (when we found the copy/paste in the attribute). We realized that we would use the non exchange MR profiles.

view this post on Zulip Sam Sayer (Jun 26 2020 at 12:26):

so no issue I think

Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC


An HL7 Website -