HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair Cris Ross, Surescripts, Co-Chair March 27, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Meaningful Use and Health Information Exchange
Advertisements

Quality Measures Vendor Tiger Team December 13, 2013.
Meaningful Use Basics.  Demographics  Active Medication List  Active Allergy List  Vitals  Smoking Status  Problem List  Computerized Physician/Provider.
HITSC Clinical Quality Workgroup Jim Walker March 27, 2012.
Implementation Workgroup: Current Activities and Next Steps.
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Judy Murphy, Aurora Health Care, Co-Chair Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair August 17,
Recommendations on Certification of EHR Modules HIT Standards Committee Privacy and Security Workgroup April 11, 2014.
Liz Johnson Christopher Ross Implementation Workgroup August 22, 2013.
Meeting Stage 1 Meaningful Use Criterion Carlos A. Leyva, Esq. Digital Business Law Group, P.A.
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair Judy Murphy, Aurora Health Care, Co-Chair January 12, 2011.
TWS July2011 Stimulation Part 2. TWS July 2011 Objective: Implement drug formulary checks. Measure: The EP has enabled this functionality and has access.
GOVERNMENT EHR FUNDING: MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 UPDATE October 25, 2012 Jonathan Krasner Healthcare IT Consultant BEI
HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Report Jamie Ferguson, Chair Kaiser Permanente John Halamka, Co-chair Harvard Medical School 21 July,
CMS NPRM proposes requirements for Stage 3 of EHR Incentive Programs (in FR March 30, 2015) In conjunction with.
Proposed Meaningful Use Criteria for Stage 2 and 3 John D. Halamka.
Meaningful Use, Standards and Certification Under HITECH—Implications for Public Health InfoLinks Community of Practice January 14, 2010 Bill Brand, MPH,
Series 1: Meaningful Use for Behavioral Health Providers From the CIHS Video Series “Ten Minutes at a Time” Module 2: The Role of the Certified Complete.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs HIT Policy Committee June 5, 2013.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs
August 12, Meaningful Use *** UDOH Informatics Brown Bag Robert T Rolfs, MD, MPH.
A First Look at Meaningful Use Stage 2 John D. Halamka MD.
Meaningful Use Measures. Reporting Time Periods Reporting Period for 1 st year of MU (Stage 1) 90 consecutive days within the calendar year Reporting.
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Judy Murphy, Aurora Health Care, Co-Chair Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair September 21, 2010.
Series 1: Meaningful Use for Behavioral Health Providers From the CIHS Video Series “Ten Minutes at a Time” Module 2: The Role of the Certified Complete.
NWH TRANSITION OF CARE DOCUMENT FOR MU STAGE 2 JUNE 6, 2014.
17 th Annual Scottsdale Institute Spring Conference April 14-16, 2010 Healthcare Leaders Embrace Reform Camelback Inn Scottsdale, AZ.
A First Look at Meaningful Use Stage 2 John D. Halamka MD.
HIT Standards Committee Privacy and Security Workgroup: Standards for Consumer Engagement Dixie Baker, SAIC Steve Findlay, Consumers Union April 28, 2009.
What Did I Work on in Washington? John Glaser April 16, 2010.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Proposed Recommendations on MU Notice of Proposed Rule Making Paul Tang, Chair Palo Alto Medical Foundation.
2015 Edition Certification NPRM HITSC Report Out Implementation, Certification, and Testing (ICT) Workgroup June 24, 2015 Liz Johnson, co-chair Cris Ross,
Affordable Healthcare IT Solutions. MU RX Compliance with Meaningful Use Stage 2.
Implementation days 10 Days Onsite Training Additional Hardware Automated Workflow Paperless Environment MD with PC Tablet / iPad Workflow Analysis.
HIT Policy Committee NHIN Workgroup Introductory Remarks David Lansky, Chair Pacific Business Group on Health Danny Weitzner, Co-Chair Department of Commerce,
HIT Standards Committee Standards Summer Camp, ePrescribing of Discharge Meds Power Team (DMPT) Update and Recommendations Jamie Ferguson, Kaiser Permanente.
Making better healthcare possible ® Meaningful Use Stage 2 The Changing Seasons of Healthcare Conference WV-HFMA/WV-HIMSS September 27, 2012.
HIT Policy Committee Privacy & Security Tiger Team Update Deven McGraw, Co-Chair Center for Democracy & Technology Paul Egerman, Co-Chair June 25, 2010.
Certification and Adoption Workgroup – Policy Committee Update on the ONC Standards and Certification NPRM Marc Probst, workgroup co-chair Larry Wolf,
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Updates July 17, 2013 DRAFT.
HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Report Jamie Ferguson, Chair Kaiser Permanente John Halamka, Co-chair Harvard Medical School 20 August,
Unit 1b: Health Care Quality and Meaningful Use Introduction to QI and HIT This material was developed by Johns Hopkins University, funded by the Department.
Information Exchange WG HIT Policy Committee Information Exchange Workgroup Micky Tripathi, MA eHealth Collaborative CHAIR 04/04/2012 Office of the National.
HIT Policy Committee Privacy and Security Tiger Team Deven McGraw, Chair Paul Egerman, Co-Chair Patient Matching Recommendations February 2,
HIT Policy Committee Adoption/Certification Workgroup Comments on NPRM, IFR Paul Egerman, Co-Chair Retired Marc Probst, Co-Chair Intermountain Healthcare.
Recommendations to the HIT Policy Committee on ONC Standards and Certification NPRM May 2, 2012 Certification and Adoption Workgroup Marc Probst, Intermountain.
©2011 Falcon, LLC. All rights reserved. Proprietary. May not be copied or distributed without the express written permission of Falcon, LLC. Falcon EHR.
June 18, 2010 Marty Larson.  Health Information Exchange  Meaningful Use Objectives  Conclusion.
HIT Standards Committee NHIN Workgroup Introductory Remarks Farzad Mostashari Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT Douglas Fridsma Office of.
HIT Policy Committee Stage 2 Recommendations Presentation to HIT Standards Committee June 22, 2011.
Component 11/Unit 2a Meaningful Use of the Electronic Health Record (EHR)
Information Exchange Workgroup Recommendations to HIT Policy Committee October 3, 2012 Micky Tripathi, Larry Garber.
HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Jamie Ferguson, Kaiser Permanente John Halamka, Harvard Medical School June 23, 2009.
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Judy Murphy, Aurora Health Care, Co-Chair Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair June 22, 2011.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Update Paul Tang Palo Alto Medical Foundation George Hripcsak Columbia University January 13, 2010.
HIT Standards CommitteeHIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair Cris Ross, Mayo Clinic, Co-Chair December.
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Aneesh Chopra Chief Technology Officer Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) October 29, 2009.
Privacy and Security Tiger Team Potential Questions for Request for Comment Meaningful Use Stage 3 October 3, 2012.
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair Judy Murphy, Aurora Health Care, Co-Chair November 16, 2011.
Configuring axiUm for Meaningful Use
Final Rule Regarding EHR Certification Flexibility for 2014 Today’s presenters: Al Wroblewski, Client Services Relationship Manager Thomas Bennett, Client.
HIT Standards Committee Privacy and Security Workgroup Task Update: Standards and Certification Criteria for Certifying EHR Modules Dixie Baker, Chair.
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Judy Murphy, Aurora Health Care, Co-Chair Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair September 28, 2011.
HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair Judy Murphy, Aurora Health Care, Co-Chair October 27, 2010.
Moving Toward HITECH Healthcare EHR Adoption at the Dawn of a New Era
HIT Policy Committee Health Information Exchange Workgroup Comments on Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and Interim Final Rule (IFR) Deven McGraw,
California Successes Engagement & Collaboration –Regional HIEs functioning and expanding for 25 years –25 organizations using Epic’s HIE solutions, many.
History of Health Information Technology in the U.S. The HITECH Act Lecture b – Meaningful Use, Health Information Exchange and Research This material.
Rural Health Summit June 11, 2010.
2017 Modified Stage 2 Meaningful Use Objectives Overview Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Program September 19 & 20, 2017 September 19,
Presentation transcript:

HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup Liz Johnson, Tenet Healthcare, Co-Chair Cris Ross, Surescripts, Co-Chair March 27, 2011

Implementation Workgroup Members Co-Chairs Liz Johnson Tenet Healthcare Cris Ross Surescripts Members Rob Anthony Centers for Medicare & Medicaid/CMS Robert BarkerNextGen Kevin Brady National Institute of Standards & Technology/NIST Anne Castro BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina Simon P. Cohn Kaiser Permanente John Derr Golden Living, LLC Carol Diamond Markle Foundation Timothy Gutshall Iowa HIT Regional Extension Center Joseph Heyman Whittier IPA Kevin Hutchinson Prematics, Inc. Lisa McDermott Cerner Corporation Tim Morris Emory University Nancy Orvis Dept. of Defense Stephen Palmer Texas Health & Human Services Wes Rishel Gartner, Inc. David KatesNaviNet Kenneth Tarkoff RelayHealth John TravisCerner Micky Tripathi MA eHealth Collaborative

Provision of General Comments on Testing Procedures Organized into Clinical Workflow Considerations and Measurement Considerations Comprehensive comments in attached document: “HITSC Implementation Workgroup Input for Certification Criteria to Support MU Stage 2 Objectives and Measures” Our work plan for next several months –Complete comments on Testing Procedures –Complete comments on Meaningful Use Certification Criteria NPRM –Develop clinical scenarios to be utilized as part of testing –Identify activities to gain public and committee insight into implementation challenges presented by MU Stage 2 and opportunities for providing guidance/standards/tools to assist in successful implementations Implementation Workgroup Report

Comments on Testing Procedures related to Clinical Workflow Considerations Explicitly test for the kinds of qualifying activities that are expected to be part of the measure (CPOE and general comment) –Consider ‘countable’ workflow scenarios in the test procedure Including context of the user interaction (EH and EP) –Also address workflow situations that should not be counted for measure –Design clinical scenarios that test more than one measure Where applicable, test procedures should verify that the EHR has the ability to affirm “none” to a MU objective (clinical and measurement) –i.e. No problem, no medication allergy, no advanced directive, no change in current meds… –Means of affirmation should reduce physician burden … medication reconciliation specific to ‘meds prescribed by individual physician’ and dealing with all other meds in a streamlined fashion, i.e. “acknowledge” in lieu of verify medication as part of active medication list

E-prescribing workflows –Test procedures should include explicit and thorough examples of prescriptions (related to Sig, DAW, refills, instructions to pharmacist, etc.) –Test procedures might also consider routing to retail and mail order pharmacies (see PVD segment Reference Number field and stipulate NCPDP IDs and pharmacy names for both). The test procedure should include examples of valid clinical scenarios that constitute “notification” –Notification may not need to be interactive to the end user at the time the decision support rule “fires” and could include a variety of means of “notification” –The notification of an alert (related to a CDS) should be real time and face up or have the option that the end user gets a display that can be require an action later (RN gets physician alert when ordering medication) –Where appropriate, test procedures should define/differentiate users, roles and alert levels, and identify acceptable means of methods of notification The display of the CDS rule source information should be concretely stated as to valid options for that display – whether a display of textual information, links to internal or external sources or other means Comments on Testing Procedures related to Clinical Workflow Considerations

The test procedure should include negative and positive qualification for the CDS rules CDS test procedures should clarify if the factors listed in the objective and certification criteria should be tested individually or in combination – i.e. all demographics, or specific combinations: age and gender and meds in use with either CDS or clinical summary ( workflow and measurement comment) Where applicable, test procedures should identify and test the default functions within the EHR if necessary data is not recorded in the EHR –i.e. If a patient communication preference is not provided Test procedures should verify that the EHR has the capability to produce reports in the format selected by the user –i.e. Generating a paper or electronic summary of care record Comments on Testing Procedures related to Clinical Workflow Considerations

Test procedures should allow for clinical reconciliation – i.e. enter new allergy /cancel an old one/maintain chain of custody - (clinical summary) Where applicable, test procedures should verify that the EHR has the ability to mark information within the EHR as invalid –i.e. Advanced directives could be validated by the use of a date and timestamp Where appropriate, test procedures should verify that outputs of an EHR activity are provided in human readable format eMAR – include clinical workflow scenarios to test the “five rights” Where appropriate, test procedures should differentiate between manual and automated processes of the EHR –i.e. eMAR assisted technology - confirmatory action by end user ensuring clinical judgment Comments on Testing Procedures related to Clinical Workflow Considerations

Public health reporting – Falls in both categories Clinical scenarios are needed to ‘prove’ the functionality works Submission process –Test data examples should take into account the common submission requirements of a representative sample of the State immunization registry –Technical improvements are required for public health lab reporting result –A conformance testing tool for syndromic surveillance should be developed for this test procedure so vendors can test the output file before going through certification –Recommend alignment with The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation for syndrome reporting that will include more data elements than were tested in Stage 1 Comments on Testing Procedures related to Measurement Considerations

E-prescribing comments –Recommend NCPDP 10.6 (if determined by standards) –Consider requiring electronic prescribing of controlled substances as optional additional criterion for MU Stage 2 and potentially require in Stage 3. Provide clinical workflow for testing if this requirement becomes part of final regulation. The test procedure should support the capture of audit evidence of measurement events not the outcome such as –Tracking overrides –Identifying the number of alerts fired –The provider identity and role of the user who took action in response to the alert Test procedures should include clear definitions, where appropriate

Comments on Testing Procedures related to Measurement Considerations Where appropriate, test procedures should verify that an EHR provides a list of possible input data without limiting the structure in which the EHR records and stores the information –i.e. Patient communication preference (within Patient Reminders in the 2014 Edition of the Certification Criteria) –Don’t prescribe how you need to complete the process but prove it can be done where it is not applicable to determine certification Test procedures should provide for workflows that test both positive and negative qualifications for the measure (including numerator and denominator) –Ability to determine the difference between patient without lab orders and patient with lab orders but not placed by CPOE patient without a problem and patient with a problem but not recorded in problem list Where applicable, test procedures should verify that data entry timestamps are recorded to ensure the information is up-to-date –Ex. Problem list

Comments on Testing Procedures related to Measurement Considerations Test procedures should test the manner by which the EHR captures/calculates the measure (measurements should be calculated by the EHR software, not manual) Test procedures should elaborate on the expected calculation and provide guidance on what factors or data elements are considered/required for measurement –Clearly define numerator and denominator and make them reference-able for the tester Clearly define how activities will be measured within a reporting period –i.e. Lab orders vs. lab results Test procedures should define necessary preconditions for building out an acceptable level of data in the domain - –i.e. provide a sample that tests more than zero of one condition or one of one condition

Comments on Testing Procedures related to Measurement Considerations Where applicable, test procedures should verify that data entry timestamps are recorded to ensure the information is up-to-date –i.e. Problem list Where applicable, test procedures should clearly recognize that measurement data may be based on multiple source event tables and articulate how the measurement should be compiled –i.e. testing where patient access is required. If information originates from several sources - HIE or portal ED or clinical system Where applicable, test procedures should clarify how time context is evaluated for the measure numerator and denominator