Performance Measurement Data Element Structured for EHR Extraction: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*[http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/472/referenceguide.pdf Collaborative for Performance Measure Integration with EHR Systems XML Schema Reference Guide] | *[http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/472/referenceguide.pdf Collaborative for Performance Measure Integration with EHR Systems XML Schema Reference Guide] | ||
Comments from Vassil Peytchev | Comments from Vassil Peytchev: | ||
The goal of the Collaborative is to create a standardized way to communicate performance measures using structured, encoded performance measure information, which can be also used within EHR applications. | The goal of the Collaborative is to create a standardized way to communicate performance measures using structured, encoded performance measure information, which can be also used within EHR applications. | ||
There are three levels of performance measures representation: | There are three levels of performance measures representation: | ||
**Performance measure description | |||
**Performance measure template | |||
**Performance measure machine processable information | |||
This holds a resemblance to the levels of a CDA document: | This holds a resemblance to the levels of a CDA document: | ||
Level 1 - Unstructured text | *Level 1 - Unstructured text | ||
*Level 2 - Structured text | |||
Level 3 - Discrete data | *Level 3 - Discrete data | ||
The CDA is patient-centric, so it is not directly applicable here. | The CDA is patient-centric, so it is not directly applicable here. | ||
However, HL7 just published a draft for the SDA ( | *However, HL7 just published a draft for the SDA (Structured Document Architecture) which is not patient-centric, and can be directly applicable for this use. The Structured Document committee of HL7 is also working on a Quality Reporting Document Architecture (QRDA). | ||
*These intersecting activities strongly suggest that collaboration is the best way forward given the emphasis on HL7 CDA and CCD-based (and therefore HL7 V3 based) specifications throughout the US (HISTP, CCHIT), and internationally (IHE). | |||
The Collaborative can consider the following notes about the Performance Measure Integration specifications: | |||
The | * The use of HL7 V3 data types when applicable. This will make the XML representation (of codes in particular)uniform across a variety of data exchange requirements. | ||
* | * Make use of the IHE processes. The IHE SVS profile, for example, will use a very similar structure to the CodeGroup and Code structure to represent contents of general value sets (using HL7 v3 datatypes). | ||
A transformation of the XML content to a more readable form | * Consider the use of the HL7 SDA as a basis for a performance measure description. This will allow for a future expandability of the format. | ||
* Reconsider the use of XML in the template for logical expressions. | |||
A transformation of the XML content to a more readable form would be preferred. | |||
* Measure specific information for two exemplars: | * Measure specific information for two exemplars: | ||
Revision as of 18:31, 22 April 2008
Current work
White paper: Performance Measurement Data Element Structured for EHR Extraction
White Paper - Performance Measurement Data Element Structured for EHR Extraction - Using value sets for identifying quality measure components (22 April Update)
Related materials
- ITI Sharing Value Sets Profile activity
- Collaborative for Performance Measure Integration with EHR Systems XML Schema Reference Guide
Comments from Vassil Peytchev: The goal of the Collaborative is to create a standardized way to communicate performance measures using structured, encoded performance measure information, which can be also used within EHR applications.
There are three levels of performance measures representation:
- Performance measure description
- Performance measure template
- Performance measure machine processable information
This holds a resemblance to the levels of a CDA document:
- Level 1 - Unstructured text
- Level 2 - Structured text
- Level 3 - Discrete data
The CDA is patient-centric, so it is not directly applicable here.
- However, HL7 just published a draft for the SDA (Structured Document Architecture) which is not patient-centric, and can be directly applicable for this use. The Structured Document committee of HL7 is also working on a Quality Reporting Document Architecture (QRDA).
- These intersecting activities strongly suggest that collaboration is the best way forward given the emphasis on HL7 CDA and CCD-based (and therefore HL7 V3 based) specifications throughout the US (HISTP, CCHIT), and internationally (IHE).
The Collaborative can consider the following notes about the Performance Measure Integration specifications:
- The use of HL7 V3 data types when applicable. This will make the XML representation (of codes in particular)uniform across a variety of data exchange requirements.
- Make use of the IHE processes. The IHE SVS profile, for example, will use a very similar structure to the CodeGroup and Code structure to represent contents of general value sets (using HL7 v3 datatypes).
- Consider the use of the HL7 SDA as a basis for a performance measure description. This will allow for a future expandability of the format.
- Reconsider the use of XML in the template for logical expressions.
A transformation of the XML content to a more readable form would be preferred.
- Measure specific information for two exemplars: