Survey Results: How did Professionals Rank the Difficulty of eCQMs?

eCQMs: What Did Professionals
Rank Easiest and Hardest?

What did hospital
professionals find the most
difficult about eCQMs?
Drum roll, please!
1

The initial eCQM
implementation phase.
…huh?

What'chu talkin’ ‘bout, Willis?

The eCQM implementation
phase consists of
v Assessing the current state of
their EHR and clinical workflows
v Identifying the codes they need
to map the eCQMs to their EHR
v Mapping codes and building
documentation in their EHR
v Testing their system and launching

This was the most difficult
aspect of eCQMs for our
survey participants.

-Respondent
The work during implementation is
hard, however, once it is established,
it is more reliable than chart-
abstracted measures.”
“

They ranked the difficulty level a 6
on a 1-10 ranking scale.

Now want to hear
something juicy?
Pull your chair closer,
this is good stuff.

The majority of our non-Medisolv client respondents
marked an 8 as the implementation level difficulty.

That means that non-Medisolv clients
marked the eCQM implementation
difficulty level 20% higher than
Medisolv clients.

-Non-Medisolv
Respondent
Coming from a smaller specialized hospital where people
wear many hats, it has proven difficult to define clear roles
regarding eCQM implementation and the confidence that
updates to value sets/codes, etc. are being made when there
are changes. A knowledge gap has definitely been identified.
“

What did hospital
professionals find the
easiest to complete?
*Pause for dramatic effect*
2

The eCQM
maintenance phase.
…what happens here?

What happens during the
eCQM maintenance phase?
v Provide education on new eCQM
regulations and specification updates
v Make any necessary changes to your EHR
including mapping and building documentation
v Provide your clinicians with education on
any changes
v Submit your quality data to regulatory programs

This was the easiest part of the eCQM
process for our survey participants.

They ranked the difficulty level a 4
on a 1-10 ranking scale.

Here is another
scoop about our
respondents.

Very few of them
had to add
staffing resources
during either of
the eCQM phases.

The implementation and
maintenance phase of eCQMs was
relatively manageable for these
hospital professionals.

How do they feel about
the accuracy of their
eCQM data?
DUN DUN DUN.
3

A large percentage of them said that they have
confidence in their eCQM results.
I have confidence
in my eCQM results
I do not have
confidence in my
eCQM results

But here’s another
interesting tidbit
about non-Medisolv
respondents.

30% of them said they do NOT
have confidence in their eCQM results.
I have confidence
in my eCQM results
I do not have
confidence in my
eCQM results

-Non-Medisolv
Respondent
eCQMs are not reliably accurate. We continue to have
discrepancy between chart abstraction vs electronic
measures. Until physicians are "forced" to document,
write orders, etc in the electronic system, there will
never be reliable and valid results for eCQM.”
“

Don’t feel like
doing the math?
That’s a
21.7%
difference.

How do these medical
professionals feel about
the eCQM process overall?
You may be surprised…
4

The majority think that eCQM
data benefits their hospital.
You heard that correctly.

Is eCQM reporting a burden or an additional
tool for quality improvement?
Electronic quality
reporting is an
unnecessary burden
on my hospital
Electronic quality
reporting is an additional
tool to monitor our
hospital’s quality
performance results

What is your take
on eCQMs?
Yay or Nay?

-Respondent
eCQMs are a great tool to see how your
hospital is progressing toward goals and
understanding how they rank with other
hospitals.”
“
YAY

-Respondent
Making sure the mapping fits and that the correct
fields are completed make this very burdensome. The
fact that the eCQM fields are not the same as the other
quality metrics makes additional burden on providers
documenting and quality/IT staff for following up.”
“
NAY

And when it comes to agreeing with eCQM
regulations, a little more than half of our
respondents support CMS for requiring them
to report eCQM data—while only 11% oppose.

Support CMS requiring
eCQM data to be
submitted as a part of
the IQR program
Do not support CMS
requiring eCQM data to
be submitted as a part of
the IQR program
No opinion

When you have a quality reporting vendor like
Medisolv that can guide you through the entire
eCQM reporting journey, you can feel good
about final submission and the accuracy of
your eCQM data.

-Respondent
Medisolv has been and continues to be
instrumental in our eCQM journey. I look to
them and their expertise to guide build and
assist in uncovering why a patient is not in the
numerator.”
“

-Respondent
The changes in the measures are easier to
keep up with. We have a great representative
from Medisolv who helps us interpret the
changes and implement the changes. We are
pleased with the inpatient side of the eCQMs.
“

-Respondent
I believe that if we had attempted to submit our eCQM
data by ourselves that we would have had a very
different and burdensome experience. Having
Medisolv to guide our mapping, data collection and
result submission brought a great success story to our
organization. For ongoing maintenance, we now
trustfully rely on their assistance to evaluate our
outcomes and keep us updated and ready to respond.”
“

eCQMs may not be
everyone’s favorite
task on the to-do
list…

But according to the 200+ medical
professionals we surveyed (both Medisolv
and non-Medisolv clients), many hospitals
are achieving eCQM success.

Medisolv users are having an easier
time getting set up and have more
confidence in their eCQM results.

Survey Results: How did Professionals Rank the Difficulty of eCQMs?

Survey Results: How did Professionals Rank the Difficulty of eCQMs?

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Survey Results: How did Professionals Rank the Difficulty of eCQMs? (20)

More from Medisolv, Inc. (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Survey Results: How did Professionals Rank the Difficulty of eCQMs?