I am writing this post, with the intent on writing a series of rants about the Meaningful Use objectives that must be met in order to secure the EHR Incentives made available by the economic stimulus bill.
Let’s start with the Meaningful Use Quality Measures. I believe this is a huge missed opportunity. We will accomplish them using the same tired back-end abstracting approach that we have always used.
I believe the quality measures will fail to be a tool for caregivers to monitor safety and quality; nor will they create a means by which payors, government or consumers can compare quality.
All of the report specifications are written using SNOMED codes and we do not use that medical nomenclature today. In fact, virtually nobody uses SNOMED. Why not write the quality measures using medical descriptions?
But, the real kicker is that everyone is rushing to measure something without talking about the clinical processes and the appropriate place and way to capture the data in real-time. If we want to be able to have good comparisons, we need to have comparable clinical processes.
Each measure requires thousands of hours of work to design the right clinical workflow and IT processes. But, instead of having objectives that define best practice for managing care and capturing data in real time, we jump straight to measurement. We skipped the most important step.
Simple example: 8 of the 15 hospital EHR Incentive quality measures deal with stroke. At what point do we know that a patient is a stroke patient? Is it when a stroke nurse completes a stroke assessment? Is it when the radiologists reads the brain scan? Is it when the attending physician reviews the CT interpretation and makes the diagnosis and instructs the nurse to begin a plan of care?
Assuming one of these is correct, then a hospital’s EHR would need:
- a codified stroke assessment form;
- the ability for the record representing the CT scan of the brain to be flagged by the radiologist (or rad tech) as indicating stroke; and/or
- the the creation of a stroke plan of care.
There are NO meaningful Use objectives for any of this. Are hospitals using EHRs to monitor stroke in real-time and take corrective action when proper care is not given? Almost none. Instead, a human being will read the hand-written notes and dictated physician reports then key ICD-9 codes into the EHR. Those will then be translated into SNOMED codes to populate reports.
All of this will take place long after the patient has left the hospital.
3 thoughts on “Meaningful Use Rant: Quality Measures”
I feel like this process almost entirely defeats the use of EHR meaningful use incentives. Aren’t they intended to make sure that hospitals and firms are using EHRs to benefit the institution? This seems to do the exact opposite
Curious what data you are collecting?
We are collecting the measures specificed in the Meaningful Use Quality Measures objective. That is fairly prescriptive. The point of this post is the ineeficient, non-standard way we (and everyone else) is going about collecting quality data.