2021.11.03 EQRS Program Working Group Meeting

PI16 Feature Review

Slide Deck: PI16 Feature Review 110321_rev2.pptx

(Please view slide deck for further feature details)

• CMS/Program will be working on developing slides to show upcoming/future plans for features that may be of interest or impact the EDIs
• Asking for the EDIs to be patient as the CMS/Program needs some time to pull all the information together to share with the group

Sides #2-5: Admission in Support of a Transplant

• • Question from Vlad - What is CMS' expectation in terms of EDIs reporting the admissions?
    • Per Vlad, some admissions when in support of transplant are very short (1-2 treatments)
    • Do these types of admissions need to be reported?
      • Lisa will discuss with CMS what is the expectation in terms of EDIs reporting the admissions, especially for short admissions in support of transplants (Action Item)

Slides #6-8: Establish a Performance Baseline for Portal Components

• • Question from Chris Brown - Is it possible to look retrospectively at what has happened since EQRS was released to see where the issues were? Are we starting fresh from now?
    • Per Lisa, she does not think there can be a retrospective look back at what has happened since EQRS was released but will take it back to CMS to find out (Action Item)
  • Question from Nathan - Is that both EDSM performance and all of the UI components?
    • Per Scott, he thinks it is a "yes" based on the acceptance criteria that mentions established performance baseline for portal microservices
    • Our goal is for Prod Preview and Prod environments to be in sync
    • If CMS is asking the EDIs to submit any special submissions to perform stress testing of the system, give the EDIs as much advanced notice as possible
    • What goes into the processing of 2744 (reports run for the entire year; running queries) is very resource heavy and when everybody's doing it at the same time it's probably spiking
    • Per Branon, there are measures that can be taken; we have production operational databases and then we have a redshift instance that can be used for reporting and offloading some of the more intensive queries

Slides #9-11: 2744 Reports

• • Question from Nathan -  Are the proposed reports being built from scratch?
    • Per Lisa, they will be built from scratch
    • These reports will be built within the application as opposed to getting them from the network coordinating center
    • Will the reports be in the reports module or under the 2744 module?
      • Lisa will need to ask the team where they plan to have the 2744 reports reside (Action Item)
    • Nathan will send report ideas to Lisa and then she will share with Michael
  • Question from Nathan - Why limited to only the 6 fields? Needs more clarification on the following Acceptance Criteria.

    • "Fields 1, 2, 3, 20, 25, and 26 - need to be displayed on the UI for 2744 A forms from Survey Year 2020 in Finalized Status"

    • Lisa will need to ask Michael why the acceptance criteria is limited to only the 6 fields listed in the Acceptance Criteria? (Action Item)
  • Per Leah Skrien - The 2744 reports are very important
    • There are a couple of things still happening that are impacting the survey
    • Will these things still be happening in PI16?
    • They are the duplicate  Medicare statuses are still not allowing people to update Medicare statuses, therefore the existing report is not working
    • Wanted to keep the potential bugs on everyone's radar for the upcoming year

Slide #12: Prevent Overwrite of Key Patient Identifiers in EQRS from EDSM

• • Per Lisa - Once the patient has been identified, we are going to be pulling the information into EQRS from EDB and once the information on these items is pulled from EDB that's going to be our source of truth
  • The information cannot be changed so that should prevent the overriding process on these items and keep everything where it matches EDB for the patient
  • Per Howard, if there is a need to tweak a patients information for some reason, there needs to be a support process in place and provided for the EDIs
  • Question from Leah - Does this include the effective date? Is there any logic, preventing overriding based on the effective date?
    • Per Lisa, she does not think the effective date is included but will ask Michael for clarification (Action Item)
  • Question from Chris - Now that we're linked to EDB or will be once this does into effect, can we stop the electronic submission of Medicare status and leave it at whatever EDB says the Medicare status is?
    • Per Lisa this idea will have to be a future version (version 2) capability
    • We are trying to create a patient repository where we take more information in from other systems.  This is going to be an epic where we add stuff in different PIs
  • Question from Nathan - If we can't update a record through EDSM submission but can we update it through the UI?
    • Per Lisa, she will need to check with Michael on whether an record can be updated through the UI (Action Item)
    • If an EDI continues to submit the wrong information will they get an error, will there be a new error created, will they have the opportunity to get in their response file the accurate data back?
      • Per Lisa, she does not think and error will be created at this time and there may not be away to notify an EDI
      • The first step is to get the correct data in and get it locked
      • Then next step would be to let the EDIs know 
      • Nathans concern is the gap between those two things; understands the locking down the data; concerned they will be creating a gap between systems were EQRS has the accurate record and we don't have a mechanism to know our data is wrong

Slides #13-18: Patient - Identify & Visually Display Depressed Patients

• • The ability to report monthly is in the system
  • It does not mean that you have to report the screening on every single patient every single month, it was done that way to report screenings every month
  • When we pull the report we will look and see how many were done quarterly b/c that's what is in the network contract
  • Question from Vlad - Will the report be locked? Can they report for a certain month during the whole year?  
    • Per Lisa they had planned to close one month afterwards.  For example, if you have March, you would have April to report it
    • Per Vlad that could be a problem not with the depression screen itself, but with post activity if patient identified as potentially depressed.  It takes time, maybe months to get an appointment with a psychiatrists so the information (actual documentation) may not be available to respond to screening for several months
    • Howard and Kathleen recommend walking through the requirements for depressed patients with the group for a better understanding
  • Due to time, this can be a topic to continue discussions at the NCC call next Wednesday, 11/10
  • Howard request a sort of overview on this topic?
    • Nathan suggests the latest version of the technical feature page
      
    • Lisa will try to find out if there is anything she can provide Howard regarding this depressed patient topic/feature (latest version of the technical feature page) 
    • Per Scott the most current copy has been posted on the public page under the Resources & References section

Next meeting scheduled for 17 Nov 2021