Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
Status

APPROVED

e-Vote Close Date

 

Affirm-Negative-Abstain9-0-0
Date Approved

 

Work Group

CQI


Project Insight ID1429
Work Groups that submitted votes

Anesthesia

CDS

Clinical Genomics

CIC

CQI

LHS

Patient Care

Pharmacy

Public Health

Work Groups that did not submit votes

BR&R

CBCP

Emergency Care

Health Care Devices



  • For each Work Group, choose Affirmative, Negative, Abstain

  • If you are voting for a WG AND are also a co-chair for another WG in the CSD, please include a comment to indicate which WG you are voting on behalf of.

  • Use the  in the comments section to add comments to the vote.

  • Feel free to comment inline on Confluence documents*.

  • Negatives that do NOT have a comment will be considered abstain. Please register your vote below.

PSS: Data Exchange for Quality Measures FHIR IG


eVote Closes:  

Link to PSS: <2018SEP_PSS_CQI_DieterleMichaelsonNguyenDolin_DataExchgQualityMeasure_FHIR_IG_revised7.docx

PBS Metrics: Yellow

Project Approval Request

Choices Your Vote Current Result: (9 Total Votes) Comments
abstain Project Approval Request
0 Votes , 0%
affirmative: There are inconsistency between the title of this project (FHIR IG for data exchange for QI) and the project scope statements (Section 3a - the scope statements appear to go beyond the scope of query/requesting and exchange of data). The scope seems to preempt among others, e.g. the medication reconciliation process, creation of reconciled medication list; processes in reporting and resolution of gaps in care Suggest that either revise/expand the project title, or revise (constraint) the scope statements to reflect the title
affirmative: LHS
affirmative: Voting affirmative for CIC - Laura
affirmative: Anesthesia
affirmative Project Approval Request
9 Votes , 100%
negative (with comments) Project Approval Request
0 Votes , 0%



*  Refer to Can I add comments without editing the page? for directions.

5 Comments

  1. Please note that this is an update to the previous PSS for Data Export for Quality Measures. The update includes the concepts of the previously approved "Gaps in Care" project that was specific to CDA and the project team lost support. However, the concepts in that project are very germane to DEQM - providing FHIR-based report to providers to address their patients for whom clinical interventions expected by measures are absent. The goal is to help improve care delivery up front rather than just measure retrospectively. The intent is to reballot DEQM in September with the additional content for the Gaps in Care concepts. The change in scope is what drove the change to the PSS.

  2. There are inconsistency between the title of this project (FHIR IG for data exchange for QI) and the project scope statements (Section 3a - the scope statements appear to go beyond the scope of query/requesting and exchange of data). The scope seems to preempt among others, e.g. the medication reconciliation process, creation of reconciled medication list; processes in reporting and resolution of gaps in care
    Suggest that either revise/expand the project title, or revise (constraint) the scope statements to reflect the title

    1. Stephen,

      Thank you for your comments.

      This project was originally approved some time ago and it has generated a number of Connectathons and 2 ballots for Data Exchange for Quality Measures (DEQM) - the latest in February 2020 for the FHIR R4 version.  The issues you raise were reasons the sponsoring WG (CQI) insisted on clearly indicating that the Medication Reconciliation use case is just that - a use case highlighting an existing eCQM (electronic clinical quality measure) currently in use in the US and converted to FHIR - but the content of the measure is the not focus of the IG or the project. The measure is only an example of a measure to show what information is shared and how, with which actors and how expressed.  The PSS does not propose to define measure content, only to explain how to share information for specific purposes.  As you can see in the added text, additional measure examples have been added to show how the interoperability standards apply.  The Gaps in Care component is similar - it is not intended to define any measure or content - all content is defined using QI-Core, the quality-specific data model supported by the FHIR Quality project for which all content derives from US Core and existing resources defined by their respective WG owners - none of these projects define the measures or the CDS artifacts; they only use existing measure examples to show how the standards apply to real-world use cases.   Hopefully that helps.  There is no pre-empting of the processes. If there are concerns about the content of the measure examples, the measure owners need to be addressed. All of the IGs strongly indicate that examples are just that - examples, and that the IGs do not endorse or verify the veracity of the measure content.

      Note - this PSS has been in force and the Gaps in Care concepts now retired had also been approved - that content is being added here.  The reference to the measure use cases are presented in the PSS only as example use cases to show the value of the interoperability guidance in the IG.

      Thanks

      Floyd

  3. For some reason, I am currently unable to see the vote section of this confluence page. I can see the comments and I am signed in.  Hopefully the voting section is still present.

    Sorry - I logged in again and the page re-displayed. I think the issue is the large amount of text in this comment section.

    1. I have voted affirmative (with comments) on behalf of PCWG