Notifications
Clear all
It seems I might be a little out numbered in this group, but I wanted to post a positive note. We have been on CQR for over a year now and have had MINIMAL PROBLEMS - as a matter of fact, we successfully attested using CQR last year and plan to do it this year as well. Our data is appearing as we expect, and we are very happy with the results.
I will say our level of success has not been without work. Once the MU Guide was released, and every time the guide is updated, I review each measure to ensure our system is set up as the guide states. That being said, the guide is not always perfect, but in those rare instances, a simple call to GE has remedied the issue.
In my opinion, GE has done a great job with CQR. Compared to the crystal reports, the CQR dashboard is much easier to read. I like that all information for 1 physician is available at a glance rather than running a different report for each measure.
I am happy to answer any questions about our setup. I don't see the need to move to a 3rd party when GE has already engineered a product that works.
Amanda Koenig
Oregon Orthopedic
Posted : August 25, 2015 6:29 am
Amanda - thank you for sharing your positive experience with CQR and GE.
Terri Werner Brown
Southwest Gastroenterology Associates
Posted : August 25, 2015 7:29 am
Perhaps GE will consider putting on a series of webinars on how to effectively use the CQR - since many (all ?) of the users are struggling to understand how to configure the Data Mapping, etc..
One other thought - when clicking on a measure to see who meets or does-not-meet, why does this NOT include the patient MRN? The first column Patient ID does not seem to equal the Patient ID in the system, so difficult to match the data back up.
Posted : September 3, 2015 2:28 am
I knew I had read this list of posting - just wondering if any are any new answers since the final rule from CMS. Thanks,
Posted : October 16, 2015 2:13 am
Page 2 / 2
Prev
