• Type: Implementation Problem
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Delivered
    • Labels:
    • 2015 Performance Period EP eCQMs :


      I am having some difficulty understanding the requirements for calculating measure 179. I am finding conflicting information and having difficulty calculating this measure.

      The measure guidance states: "A Valid INR Interval is defined as a pair of INR start dates that are less than or equal to 56 days apart. Patients without 2 such intervals will be excluded from the calculation of the providers’ Average PctTTR later on."

      This is found in both of the following documents:
      "Electronic Clinical Quality Measure Logic and Implementation Guidance and Technical Release Notes"
      which references file
      "CMS179v2_UserGuide_SQL_Logic_Reference Jun 2013.pdf"

      But neither of the two Cypress patients (both A, Heart_Adult) have a valid INR Interval. All of the dates of the results are > 56 days apart. This should result in the patient from being "excluded from the calculation of the providers’ Average PctTTR later on".

      Additionally, according to JIRA CQM issue #899, "There is nothing in the logic definition that states 56 days. It may say something in the description about it but unless the measure authors actually place it in the logic it will not get picked up and will not be implemented. All of the measures are based strictly off of the coded logic sections in the HQMF. If anything this is an error in the measure definition in that the developers did not actually implement in the logic what they described in the description. We can certainly open an issue based around that."

      But the measure as written in the XML does not appear to be something that can be calculated.

      What is going on here?


          Issue Links



              • Assignee:
                dczulada David Czulada
                Matthew Matthew Dugal
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                2 Start watching this issue


                • Created:
                  Comment Posted On: