{"content":[{"text":"National Quality Forum \n AHIMA Comments on HITEP Report \n Page 2","bbox":{"left":0.094118,"top":0.089182,"width":0.32017100000000004,"height":0.05583300000000001}},{"text":"General Feedback \n • True interoperability will not occur until data definitions and codes are standardized and \n incorporated into technical standards. AHIMA recommends including additional text describing \n how the common data types defined in the report should be aligned with similar data elements in \n other data sets. This exercise will support the movement toward collecting data once so it can be \n repurposed multiple times for quality, population health reporting, research, and administration.","bbox":{"left":0.094118,"top":0.158591,"width":0.7883519999999999,"height":0.10839399999999996}},{"text":"•","bbox":{"left":0.094118,"top":0.283479,"width":0.009019,"height":0.018562000000000023}},{"text":"AHIMA suggests specifically calling out the role of standard development organizations (SDOs) \n and the need align the HITEP common data types with new and existing technical standards. \n Active engagement of SDOs will aid in bridging the gap between the quality and information \n technology enterprises.","bbox":{"left":0.123529,"top":0.282758,"width":0.7596999999999999,"height":0.072409}},{"text":"Section III. – Expert Panel Analysis \n • Page 15, line 299 – “…The Expert Panel constructed an organizational chart (Figure 4)…” The \n figure notation is incorrect. The correct notation should be “Figure 3”.","bbox":{"left":0.094118,"top":0.369803,"width":0.782017,"height":0.056197}},{"text":"•","bbox":{"left":0.094118,"top":0.442494,"width":0.009019,"height":0.018562000000000023}},{"text":"Page 15, line 305 – The report discusses \"the need to influence 'upstream' processes so that \n measures being submitted for NQF endorsement meet criteria set to increase the comparative value \n of quality scores and minimize the effort required to acquire and report out the quality scores in an \n EHR.\" Following this statement, Figure 3 is displayed representing the \"Organizational \n Relationships in Quality measurement, Health IT and NQF Influence.\" Does this figure represent \n current quality measurement, health IT and NQF relationships? If so, how will the organizational \n relationships change after the 'upstream' processes have been influenced? It may be useful to \n include an additional figure depicting the envisioned \"future state.\"","bbox":{"left":0.123529,"top":0.441773,"width":0.777993,"height":0.142106}},{"text":"•","bbox":{"left":0.094118,"top":0.600373,"width":0.009019,"height":0.018561999999999967}},{"text":"Page 16, Figure 3 – AHIMA recommends incorporating corresponding descriptions for each \n element of the diagram (similar to the format used in the AHIC Use Cases, with numbers and \n corresponding detailed descriptions of the entities and processes depicted).","bbox":{"left":0.123529,"top":0.599652,"width":0.732451,"height":0.05498400000000003}},{"text":"Section IV. – Expert Panel Recommendations \n • Page 18, Recommendations 5 and 6 – AHIMA supports recommendations for developing key EHR \n system functionality that will support automated collection and reporting of quality measurement \n information, but functionality should be defined and vetted in a coordinated and transparent \n manner, such as through the development of a Quality Measurement Functional Profile standard \n based on the HL7 EHR System Functional Model (EHR-S FM). Development of a Quality \n Measurement Functional Profile will facilitate a collaborative approach toward defining quality \n related EHR functionality, further demonstrate the business needs for system vendors, and guide \n the development of CCHIT certification criteria to support quality.","bbox":{"left":0.094118,"top":0.669273,"width":0.8093629999999999,"height":0.16066599999999998}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}