Uploaded image for project: 'eCQM Issue Tracker'
  1. eCQM Issue Tracker
  2. CQM-1984

For patients whose first visit to our hospital is their delivery, we are at a loss to document this appropriately to meet the eCQM criteria.

XMLWordPrintable

    • timing of PC-01 Exclusions
    • Jenn Sewell
    • 314-951-5603
    • SSM Health
    • We'd like clarification regarding the timing of the exclusions. We would like to not have to completely redo a workflow unless absolutely necessary. We would like to continue to document in our delivery summary
    • Hide
      Thank you for raising this issue. We understand and appreciate the limitations of relying on timing to determine when diagnoses or procedures are historical. Unfortunately, there is not a straightfoward solution to the problem (described below). We would like the opportunity to discuss this issue further with you and a broader community of vendors and implementers, and have flagged this ticket for future discussion through the Change Review Process (CRP).

      There are not consistent ways within EHRs or within standards to represent history. For example, there are not "history of" ICD-10 and SNOMED codes we can rely on for these data elements. Therefore, if patient history of these procedures is documented during this encounter, we cannot differentiate whether the intent was to document history or if the condition was present/procedure performed during the encounter. In cases such as this one, the clinical intent is specifically to capture history and not current conditions or procedures.

      The logic you provide is not from the exclusions, it is actually part of the measure numerator and is used to define cases in which a cesarean birth is performed prior to the onset of labor and in the absence of prior uterine surgeries. If you do not have the ability to capture start times prior to the encounter, you may have more numerator cases than you would expect, as the numerator may include cesarean birth cases where there is missing data for prior uterine surgeries.

      Some systems allow users to indicate the "active" or "present" status of diagnoses/conditions. This may also be a method to address your workflow concerns above.

      Thank you for providing this example.
      Show
      Thank you for raising this issue. We understand and appreciate the limitations of relying on timing to determine when diagnoses or procedures are historical. Unfortunately, there is not a straightfoward solution to the problem (described below). We would like the opportunity to discuss this issue further with you and a broader community of vendors and implementers, and have flagged this ticket for future discussion through the Change Review Process (CRP). There are not consistent ways within EHRs or within standards to represent history. For example, there are not "history of" ICD-10 and SNOMED codes we can rely on for these data elements. Therefore, if patient history of these procedures is documented during this encounter, we cannot differentiate whether the intent was to document history or if the condition was present/procedure performed during the encounter. In cases such as this one, the clinical intent is specifically to capture history and not current conditions or procedures. The logic you provide is not from the exclusions, it is actually part of the measure numerator and is used to define cases in which a cesarean birth is performed prior to the onset of labor and in the absence of prior uterine surgeries. If you do not have the ability to capture start times prior to the encounter, you may have more numerator cases than you would expect, as the numerator may include cesarean birth cases where there is missing data for prior uterine surgeries. Some systems allow users to indicate the "active" or "present" status of diagnoses/conditions. This may also be a method to address your workflow concerns above. Thank you for providing this example.
    • CMS113v4/NQF0469
    • CMS113v3/NQF0469
    • Hide
      PC-01 Exclusions per testing tool must occur in an encounter PRIOR to the delivery.

      ◾AND NOT: Union of: ◾"Diagnosis, Resolved: Perforation of Uterus"
      ◾"Diagnosis, Resolved: Uterine Window"
      ◾"Diagnosis, Resolved: Uterine Rupture"
      ◾"Diagnosis, Inactive: Cornual Ectopic Pregnancy"
      ◾"Procedure, Performed: Classical Cesarean Birth"
      ◾"Procedure, Performed: Myomectomy"
      ◾"Procedure, Performed: Transabdominal Cerclage"
      ◾starts before start of Occurrence A of $EncounterInpatient

      For patients whose first visit to our hospital is to delivery, how can we document this outside the inpatient encounter. We could add it to OB and/or surgical history, but it would still potentially occur in the current encounter. Is this your intent?
      Show
      PC-01 Exclusions per testing tool must occur in an encounter PRIOR to the delivery. ◾AND NOT: Union of: ◾"Diagnosis, Resolved: Perforation of Uterus" ◾"Diagnosis, Resolved: Uterine Window" ◾"Diagnosis, Resolved: Uterine Rupture" ◾"Diagnosis, Inactive: Cornual Ectopic Pregnancy" ◾"Procedure, Performed: Classical Cesarean Birth" ◾"Procedure, Performed: Myomectomy" ◾"Procedure, Performed: Transabdominal Cerclage" ◾starts before start of Occurrence A of $EncounterInpatient For patients whose first visit to our hospital is to delivery, how can we document this outside the inpatient encounter. We could add it to OB and/or surgical history, but it would still potentially occur in the current encounter. Is this your intent?

      Exclusions logic currently requires documentation outside the delivery encounter. If the patient has had a prior delivery in our hospital, this is being adequately captured. However, if the patient is first delivering at our facility we have been documenting this for abstraction within the Delivery Summary. Per the reporting logic, this will fail because it was documented within the current encounter.

      If we move to OB history or surgical history, it would potentially still occur in the same encounter.

            JLeflore Mathematica EH eCQM Team
            JSewell Jennifer Sewell (Inactive)
            Jennifer Sewell (Inactive)
            Jennifer Sewell (Inactive)
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            5 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:
              Solution Posted On:
              Comment Posted On: