Meeting Minutes Health Information Technology Workgroup 10/01/2015 | 3:00 – 4:30 p.m. MT | CDPHE Room A2A
Type of Meeting: Chairs:
Workgroup Meeting David Keller, Marc Lassaux
SIM Representative:
Jean Lamont, Program Manager
Note Taker:
Linda Sample
Members in Attendance:
Jason Greer, David Keller, Kyle Knierim, Marc Lassaux, Samantha Lippolis, Barbara Martin, Jonathon Mathieu, Terry Mayer, Chris Wells
Ex Officio:
Lynnette Hampton, Tara Smith, Sydney Oelerich, Rachel Short
Commented [LS1]: Sydney and Rachel’s last names need to be added.
Observers:
Megan Cormier, Maggie Dunham, Leigh O’Connell, Caitlyn Everard, Brant Seibert
Commented [LS2]: Is Brant new member of workgroup or was he an observer?
Discussion Topic 1: Welcome and Introductions
Jean Lamont opened the meeting, facilitated introductions and reviewed the agenda.
Topic 2: Kate Kiefert’s Resignation
Jean Lamont announced that Kate Kiefert has resigned from the HIT workgroup and left her position as a State HIT Coordinator. Kate’s hard work and efforts around SIM were recognized and she will be sincerely missed. She has accepted a position with the Office of National Coordinator (ONC). Kate will work with six SIM states but not Colorado.
Topic 3: Whiteboard Planning Session: Report, Review and Discussion
Jean Lamont facilitated a discussion around the Planning Session which took place on September 17, 2015 (slides were handed out at the meeting and are available on Basecamp). The following individuals participated in the planning session: Troy Evatt for David Poulin, Lynnette Hampton, David Keller, Kate Kiefert, Kyle
The project described was supported by Funding Opportunity Number CMS-1G1-14-001 from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The contents provided are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HHS or any of its agencies.
Meeting Minutes
Knierim, Marc Lassaux, Rebecca from Centura for Samantha Lippolis and Toria Thompson. Thank you to all who participated. During the planning session, clinical data, numerators and denominators and roll up were defined. The following is input from the broader workgroup today: Clinical Data: o There was significant discussion around the definition of “clinician”. The consensus was that “clinician” should be replaced with “clinical team”. Numerators and Denominators: o Counts are better than percentages in this definition. o A question arose as to whether we want practice level data versus provider level data. In the short term, practice level data is needed given in February, 2016 we will have a cohort of 100 practices. As time goes on the data may potentially be taken down to a finer level. It was also stated that we are piggybacking on meaningful use which starts at the provider level so if we want practice level data it may be different from what practices can provide in the beginning. o The group felt that rather than only including the practice level in the definition, the definition for #3 should be made broader, i.e. provider or practice level and potentially to accommodate future needs. o Follow-up: Johnathan Mathieu to finalize #2a definition. Roll up: o There are multiple levels to roll up to: provider to practice to cohort, etc. o Recommended definition: roll up to the level necessary to drive action. The five HIT objectives for SIM were refined during the planning session. Shared Practice Improvement Tool (SPIT) and eCQMs: o New name for practice assessment tool is SPIT. o Theme: Data Quality. A suggestion was made to not capitalize data quality as there was a concern that if capitalized it could become jargon. o A comment was made that eCQMs should be separated from the Shared Practice Improvement Tool. Kyle Knierim, David Keller, Marc Lassaux and Jean Lamont will revise and publish back out to the broader team for review. Data Acquisition & Aggregation: o The intent of the refined objective is to capture the fact that in addition to the SIM application, the goal is to make this scalable and to receive more clinical data from practices over time. o The general consensus is that we are not going to be generating reports. A model proposed is that practices can generate their reports however they need to, whether they use their own data platform or EHRs and then that gets rolled up in aggregate or some kind of an outcomes based reporting mechanism into the SIM infrastructure.
The project described was supported by Funding Opportunity Number CMS-1G1-14-001 from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The contents provided are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HHS or any of its agencies.
Commented [LS3]: Jonathan mentioned that 2a needs to be aligned with 3, however, I was not sure exactly how so wasn’t sure what to put down here as a final definition.
Commented [LS4]: Please review and clarify.
Meeting Minutes
Analytical Reporting: o From a reporting standpoint, the group discussed the need to start with what everyone is required to do and then move on to a subset of those practices that can and want to do something different and support them in that way. o There is a concern about using QRDAs because that national standard is not widely used yet. Barbara Martin suggested that objectives be put in the SMART format. Jean will work with Barbara to do this.
Topic 4: Notion of the “North Stars”
Jean Lamont reviewed slides on ‘north stars’ and potential characteristics to look for to determine potential ‘all-star’ practices. o A suggestion was made to take 400 off of the upper triangle on slide 15. Also, it can’t be assumed all 400 practices are going to integrate claims data. Move those up a little higher in pyramid. o A question was asked about how the SIM ‘all-star’ practices mesh with integrated care at the community level. Do we need ‘all-star communities’ that are doing this in a different way? At the planning session it was implied that all stars could be practices, communities, organizations. This needs to be defined. o A suggestion was made to have one of the characteristics to look for when evaluating potential ‘all-star’ practices is whether the practice has a community view. Follow-up: ‘north stars’ need to be fleshed out and additional discussion needs to happen across different workgroups to complete these.
Topic 5: Timeline Review
Team members reviewed timelines in the meeting room and used post-it notes to indicate gaps or questions regarding the timelines. There was also small group discussion which Jean Lamont will record.
Topic 6: Next Steps
Slide deck from today’s workgroup meeting is on Basecamp. Revise slide deck based on comments and input from today’s workgroup meeting. Jean Lamont, David Keller and Marc Lassaux will have a call on October 5 th to assimilate comments and revise the slide deck which will be sent to the broader team
The project described was supported by Funding Opportunity Number CMS-1G1-14-001 from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The contents provided are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HHS or any of its agencies.
Meeting Minutes
on October 8th for review. Workgroup members are to submit comments by October 10th. If needed, a teleconference will be convened (TBD). Silence means consent. The intent is to then present this slide deck at the October 14 th Steering Committee meeting. See action items listed below.
Public Comment: None
Referrals to SIM Steering Committee:
Members will approve a recommendation to the Steering Committee for their October 14th meeting regarding the objectives and schedule of the workgroup.
Action Items: Item Jonathan Mathieu to provide final definition on #2a of numerators and denominators. Put HIT objectives into the SMART format. Assimilate comments and revise slide deck and send to workgroup members for review. Review slide deck and provide comments. Protest only response. Silence by the due date will be considered acceptance. Finalize slide deck. Submit recommendation to the Steering Committee
Commented [LS5]: What is the ask of the Committee?
Commented [LS6]: I inserted action items, however, I donot have due dates for all of them. In addition, I don’t know what the process is following submission of comments on the slide deck to you.
Responsible Party Jonathan Mathieu Lamont
Due Date and
Jean
Jean Lamont and Barbara Martin David Keller, Marc Lassaux and 10/7/15 Jean Lamont Workgroup members
10/9/15
Jean Lamont Jean Lamont
10/13/15 10/13/15
The project described was supported by Funding Opportunity Number CMS-1G1-14-001 from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The contents provided are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HHS or any of its agencies.
