Uploaded image for project: 'QDM Issue Tracker'
  1. QDM Issue Tracker
  2. QDM-232

QDM 5.3 and 5.4 Timing Issues

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: Guidance Guidance
    • Resolution: Answered
    • Icon: Moderate Moderate
    • Data Model
    • None
    • Hide
      Addressing actual performance time may increase performance since some items documented after they happen fail to meet measure criteria. Some measure developer feedback on the QDM User Group call suggested that author dateTime was sometimes preferred as it is a time stamp from the computer when data are entered. Practitioners have the option of manually updating actual performance times, a fact which might raise some concerns with respect the accuracy.
      Show
      Addressing actual performance time may increase performance since some items documented after they happen fail to meet measure criteria. Some measure developer feedback on the QDM User Group call suggested that author dateTime was sometimes preferred as it is a time stamp from the computer when data are entered. Practitioners have the option of manually updating actual performance times, a fact which might raise some concerns with respect the accuracy.

      Anne Coultas and David Clayman asked questions on the QDM User Group call May 15, 2019 regarding application of actual performance time to existing measures using QDM 5.3 and 5.4 for which author dateTime is expressed in the CQL.  The request:

      For the following 2019 CQMs below, can we use the proposed QDM timings in QDM v5.5 mentioned in JIRA CQM-3556? The JIRA case, CQM-3556, stated that we would have to create separate JIRA cases for each individual measure.  I attached an Excel spreadsheet that shows where the authordatetime CQLs are on each measure mentioned below, as well as the proposed QDM Timings Table in QDM v5.5:

      • Assessment Performed
      • Can we use the relevant datetime or relevant period instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS90
      • CMS82
      • CMS66
      • CMS56
      • CMS2
      • CMS249
      • CMS160
      • CMS159
      • CMS157
      • CMS153
      • CMS149
      • Communication Performed
      • Can we use the sent (datetime) or received (datetime) instead of the authordatetime or relevant period for
      • CMS147
      • CMS142
      • CMS135
      • CMS50
      • Diagnostic Study Performed
      • Can we use the relevant datetime or relevant period instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS143
      • Immunization Administered
      • Can we use the relevant datetime instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS147
      • CSM127
      • CMS117
      • Intervention Performed
      • Can we use the relevant datetime or relevant period instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS50
      • CMS2
      • CMS149
      • Laboratory Test Performed
      • Can we use the relevant datetime or relevant period instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS52
      • CMS130
      • Medication Active
      • Can we use the relevant datetime or relevant period instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS138
      • CMS136
      • CMS128
      • Medication Dispense
      • Can we use the relevant datetime or relevant period instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS136
      • CMS128
      • Physical Exam Performed
      • Can we use the relevant datetime or relevant period instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS69
      • CMS165
      • Procedure Performed
      • Can we use the relevant datetime or relevant period instead of the authordatetime for
      • CMS147

      See attached Excel spreadsheet for the detailed request and the Word document analyzing the request.  Currently seeking eCQM measure developer feedback.

        1. Allscripts Report for author dateTime analysis15May2019.docx
          22 kB
        2. AuthorDAteTimeMeasureAnalysis 2019.xlsx
          42 kB

            FEisenberg Floyd Eisenberg
            FEisenberg Floyd Eisenberg
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            10 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: