Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Summary of Comments on the ONC Voluntary 2015 Edition Proposed Rule Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, co-chair Cris Ross, co-chair April 24, 2014.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Summary of Comments on the ONC Voluntary 2015 Edition Proposed Rule Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, co-chair Cris Ross, co-chair April 24, 2014."— Presentation transcript:

1 Summary of Comments on the ONC Voluntary 2015 Edition Proposed Rule Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, co-chair Cris Ross, co-chair April 24, 2014

2 Workplan 1 MeetingTasks March 13 th 2015 Edition General Overview and Observations Certification Criteria: § (a)(1) Computerized provider order entry—medications. § (a)(2) Computerized provider order entry—laboratory. § (a)(3) Computerized provider order entry—radiology/imaging. § (b)(4) Incorporate laboratory tests and values/results. § (b)(5) Inpatient setting only— transmission of electronic laboratory tests and values/results to ambulatory providers. March 21 st Certification Criteria: § (b)(1) Transitions of care. § (b)(2) Clinical information reconciliation and incorporation. § (b)(6) Data portability. § (e)(1) View, Download, and Transmit to a Third Party. April 4 th Certification Criteria: § (e)(2) Ambulatory setting only– clinical summary. § (h)(1) Transmit— Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport. (Direct) § (h)(2) Transmit— Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport and XDR/XDM for Direct Messaging. § (h)(3) Transmit— SOAP Transport and Security Specification and XDR/XDM for Direct Messaging. § (h)(4) Transmit— Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport and Delivery Notification. § (a)(11) Electronic notes. § (a)(15) Family health history.

3 Workplan - continued 2 MeetingTasks April 17 th Certification Criteria: § (f)(2) Transmission to immunization registries. § (f)(3) Transmission to public health agencies – syndromic surveillance. § (f)(4) Transmission of reportable laboratory tests and values/results. § (f)(6) Transmission to cancer registries. § (a)(5) Demographics. § (a)(10) Clinical decision support. (not Health eDecisions Proposal) § (a)(16) Patient list creation. § (a)(17) Patient-specific education resources. § (a)(20) Implantable device list. § (g)(3) Safety-enhanced design. § (g)(4) Quality management system. § (g)(5) Non-percentage-based measure report. April 23 rd Topics for Discussion: Discontinuation of the Complete EHR definition Non-MU EHR Technology Certification “Certification Packages” for EHR Modules Regulatory Impact Analysis April 24 th Presentation of Comments to Health IT Standards Committee

4 Comments

5 Summary of Comments on the 2015 Edition CPOE and Provider Exchange of Lab Results o CPOE – support for splitting the criterion into 3 criteria o Inclusion of LOI standard in CPOE-Labs (§ (a)(2)) and LRI standard in provider exchange criteria (§ (b)(4) and (5))  Concern expressed that stakeholders aren’t using these standards (newer standards)  Workgroup questioned whether certification should push adoption of standards or let the market determine what’s best (lab standards were developed by broad stakeholder group and have gone/going through HL7 balloting)  Workgroup questioned whether these standards and capabilities should be separate from MU required standards and capabilities. 4

6 March 21, 2014 Meeting Summary of Comments on the 2015 Edition § (b)(1) Transitions of Care (ToC) Confirmed that UDI applies only to a patient’s implantable device EHRs will not be able to distinguish between a 2014 and 2015 CCDA – although 2015 Edition EHR technology must be able to receive both types EHR technology certified to the 2014 Edition will not be able to receive/process a ToC using CCDA 2.0 Edge Protocol IG - Too ambiguous. Not constrained enough. Performance Standard - Difficult to understand how it could be tested for certification / no suggested way Patient Matching - Requiring month, day and year is an unnecessary constraint (use just year) § (b)(2) Clinical Information Reconciliation and Incorporation No objections to shifting incorporation from ToC certification criterion into this criterion Agreed it made sense from a workflow standpoint § (b)(6) Data Portability Confirmed data elements had not changed from the 2014 Edition CC Recommend calling the certification criterion “core clinical data migration” § (e)(1) View, Download, and Transmit to a Third Party It is good to push Edge Protocol requirement (once constraint issues are resolved), but this is a small part towards getting to HISP neutrality (will not make it happen alone) Should not be required to have to send or receive health information from any Direct address without an established trust relationship. Certification should not require the establishment of these trust relationships. 5

7 March 21, 2014 Meeting Summary of Comments on the 2015 Edition § (e)(2) Ambulatory setting only – clinical summary. Ok with adding CDX for immunizations LOINC o LOINC codes and clinician orders are not precise and LOINC doesn't cover all orders o Should not be “all” – should be “whenever available or when possible” o Issue about the specificity of LOINC codes versus indefinite nature of future orders that needs to be resolved in final rule UDI – no concern expressed Situational Dependency o Concern about how to define the encounter for testing purposes – How it should be limited/customized § (h) Transmission Certification Criteria Process was explained – unclear on remaining concerns § (b)(1) requires Edge Protocol and send/receive capability related to the CCDA. § (a)(15) Family health history. Insufficient evidence that HL7 Pedigree and the new IG are in wide use (IG is fairly new) Converging to just HL7 Pedigree (from SNOMED CT) will be complicated and very burdensome 6

8 March 21, 2014 Meeting Summary of Comments on the 2015 Edition § (a)(11) Electronic notes. Members were asked to provide feedback on request for comments (see next slide) Feedback o The types of notes would certainly need to be specified. For example, does it include scanned notes (which would require OCR tools)? Does it require searching of PDFs? What about proprietary formats like MS Word? HTML? What about the source of the notes – internal vs. external from dictation services? Some notes may be linked to from within the EHR, but may not actually be contained by the EHR — would those linked notes be included? o one-patient-at-a-time searching makes sense as a potential requirement, but that searching across- all-patients-at-once does not. The latter requires considerably greater complexity as it has to deal with complex security issues such as which patients the provider has rights to access, etc. and does not strike me as a core capability that merits an EHR certification test. o Suspect that many vendors are not prepared. Sounds like a 2017 consideration. o In general, if the market is working, there need not be a certification test, particularity one that does not deal with interoperability. o No, the metadata is typically stored in EHR data tables that are associated with the note, and it would be redundant to put the same data into the note header as well. if the note is exported out of the EHR, then the metadata can be added via a standard CDA header, wrapped around the note. § (f)(2) Transmission to immunization registries. Updated IG is not controversial – clarifies ambiguity and improves interoperability To be continued 7


Download ppt "Summary of Comments on the ONC Voluntary 2015 Edition Proposed Rule Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, co-chair Cris Ross, co-chair April 24, 2014."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google