Welcome to the NEW CHUG— your ultimate destination for cutting-edge insights and discussions at the intersection of healthcare and technology.

Our platform is dedicated to exploring the dynamic landscape of healthcare technology, empowering professionals, enthusiasts, and innovators alike with the knowledge and resources to navigate the rapidly evolving field.

From telemedicine revolutionizing patient care to the transformative potential of artificial intelligence in diagnostics, we delve into a myriad of topics shaping the future of healthcare delivery. Whether you’re a seasoned healthcare IT professional, an aspiring entrepreneur in the digital health space, or simply curious about the latest innovations, our curated content, expert interviews, and thought-provoking articles provide a comprehensive exploration of healthcare technology’s most pressing issues.

Join us as we navigate the forefront of innovation, driving forward the transformation of healthcare for a healthier, more connected world.

Have questions or suggestions? Please use the contact button below.

Notifications

Clear all

Meaningful Use mid-level provider encounters

MU, CQR, PQRS, etc.

Last Post by Anonymous 1 second ago

4 Posts

4 Users

0 Reactions

70 Views

RSS

emaher

(@emaher)

Posts: 71

Estimable Member

Topic starter

We were told that physicians can (at their discretion) include mid-level provider encounters in their Meaningful Use statistics.

I'm guessing CQR doesn't support this. Ideally, we'd want to lump the physicians and mid-levels into one bucket. That way no double counting occurs.

Is there a way to get CQR to do this? Anyone reported on mid-level encounters?

Posted : March 2, 2016 1:14 pm

hbias

(@hbias)

Posts: 83

Estimable Member

we treat every office visit encounter as if it will count on the physicians tally. My understanding is if the physician counter signs the visit (all of ours do) then it will count on theirs. I do calculate all the same things for midlevels and physicians so the physicians know if their midlevel needs some nudging to collect the data needed. I looked into this when we first went on CQR but have not verified this is still the case recently.

Hilary

Posted : March 3, 2016 4:12 am

tcross

(@tcross)

Posts: 165

Estimable Member

Based on the results I got from 2015 data, I think you are right Hilary. I also reviewed some fo the included pateints for the provider and found that their office visits were scheduled with the ARNP but th enote was co-signed by the physician. I was also told by GE when I questioned it that if the physician signed the note and it had the appropriate document choice and met the other criteria for the measure it would count. I would like to get any further info on this though. If anyone has more updated info.

Posted : March 3, 2016 6:38 am

mcwilson

(@mcwilson)

Posts: 92

Estimable Member

The "MU and Quality Program Preparation Series - MU and PQRS: Choosing a service pack and data submission requirements document states document is very helpful in relation to these questions.

For instance Page 15 states:

Functional measures use “Seen by” and “Office Visit” definition

• Order codes in ‘GE Seen By’ and ‘GE Office Visit’ value sets shown in Data Mapping – ONLY the order’s Authorizing provider is associated as the EP

• Document types in ‘Patient Encounter (MU)’ global document view – carried over from MU Stage 1 – ANY signer of the document is associated with patient encounter

• Changes to document view do not exclude encounters already sent to CQR

On this same document Page 17 states:

Signing workflows impacted by use of document types

Workflows that may cause over counting
• Supervising Physician reviews and co-signs documents for mid-level providers

• Acknowledgement signature of consulting physician’s office visit

Page 9 gives a method to avoid over counting by waiting 1 day before co-signing the document:

All FM Documents co-signed after the nightly JSON extract will not be associated with the EP unless they are appended ( workflow guidance available)
SR 63961

Posted : March 3, 2016 10:32 am

Share:

24 Forums
9,940 Topics
39.9 K Posts
0 Online
6,470 Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

Powered by wpForo Powered by wpForo version 2.4.0