Seeing synergy: Aligning Meaningful Use measures with accreditation standards.
Regulatory compliance (Measurement)
|Publication:||Name: Behavioral Healthcare Publisher: Vendome Group LLC Audience: Academic; Trade Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health; Health care industry; Psychology and mental health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 Vendome Group LLC ISSN: 1931-7093|
|Issue:||Date: Nov-Dec, 2012 Source Volume: 32 Source Issue: 6|
|Topic:||Event Code: 350 Product standards, safety, & recalls; 930 Government regulation|
When compliance officers compared how the actions needed to comply
with accreditation standards aligned with the measurement steps required
to achieve Meaningful Use of EHRs, they discovered a surprising synergy.
For many providers who otherwise meet eligibility criteria for participation in electronic health record (EHR) incentive programs, there can be a nagging concern that halts steps toward system implementation. They worry that the efforts needed to qualify for EHR Meaningful Use incentive dollars will somehow "cost" more than they are worth in clinical time, effort, or service productivity, or that these measures could conflict with other critical operating standards, such as JCAHO or CARF behavioral health program accreditation requirements, resulting in more, rather than less efficiency.
In a recent webinar, two compliance professionals from provider organizations teamed with Mary Givens, Meaningful Use program manager for webinar sponsor Qualifacts to discuss whether and how the data gathering and patient service processes required to meet accreditation standards might serve to meet Meaningful Use measures as well.
Overall, the two compliance officers--Lance Niles of Sound Community Services (New London, Conn.) and Jennifer Woods of Albertina Kerr (Portland, Ore.) found broad alignment.
Niles, whose organization relies on CARF standards, found that the data required to detail eight of 15 "core" (required) Meaningful Use measures corresponded closely with that required to demonstrate compliance with nine current CARF standards. He also noted that data to meet three of the ten Meaningful Use "menu set" measures (five "menu set" measures must be selected) related closely to that required for three CARF standards (see MU/CARF chart).
To get eligible providers "on board" for EHR implementation, Niles says that "you have to sell them on two ideas: First, that an EHR will improve the care they are already providing and second, that Meaningful Use will not be extra work for them. Aligning the Meaningful Use measures with the accreditation standards gives the eligible professional a clear picture of the goals of each, and may even provide additional tools they were not currently using."
He maintains that by streamlining workflows to include rules, standards and contractual requirements and setting up service documentation to eliminate duplication and discrepancies--both of which can be done with an EHR system, providers can avoid creating "an extra burden of effort."
Woods found that a comparison of MU measures and JCAHO behavioral health care standards showed that eight of the 15 core MU measures aligned closely with 11 Joint Commission standards, while an additional three menu set measures aligned with four Joint Commission standards (see MU/JCAHO chart).
By comparing the Joint Commission standards with the Meaningful Use measures, it is easy to see the inherent alignment. The main goal for any accrediting body is to improve the quality, safety and engage individuals in their own treatment. Meaningful Use measures support and reinforce these same goals, Woods explained.
Meaningful Use Measure CARF Standard Core 2: Implement drug-drug Medication Monitoring and and drug-allergy interaction Management (Section 5. E.) 1. checks Core 3: Maintain an up-to-date Screening and Access to problem list Services (Section 2. B.) 14. Core 4: ePrescribing Medication Use (Section 2. E.) 7. Core 5: Maintain an Active Medication Monitoring and Medication list Management (Section 5. E.) 1. Core 6: Maintain an Active Medication Monitoring and Medication Allergy List Management (Section 5. E.) 1. Strategic Planning (Section 1. C.) Core 7: Record Demographics Performance Measurement and Management (Section 1. M.) Performance Improvement (Section 1. N.) Core 12: Electronic copy of health information upon request Core 13: Clinical Summary Screening and Access to after each office visit Services (Section 2. B.) 14. 0. Menu 5: Access to health Rights of Persons Served information (portal) (Section 1.K.) d. Menu 7: Medication Medication Use (Section 2. E.) reconciliation 10. a,b,c,d,e. Menu 8: Summary of Care Record Program/Service Structure (Section 2.A.) 7.a,b. Meaningful Use Measure Joint Commission Standard Core 2: Implement drug-drug Medication Management .01.01.01 and drug-allergy interaction Record of Care, Treatment, and checks Services .02.01.01 Core 3: Maintain an up-to-date Record of Care, Treatment, and problem list Services .02.01.01--(2) Medication Management .04.01.01(14) Core 4: ePrescribing Not Applicable Core 5: Maintain an Active National Patient Safety Goal Medication list .03.06.01(1) Core 6: Maintain an Active Medication Management Medication Allergy List 01.01.01(1), .07.01.03 Record of Care, Treatment, and Services .02.01.01(2) Core 7: Record Demographics Care, Treatment, and Services .02.02.01 (1) Record of Care, Treatment, and Services .01.01.01, 02.01.01 Core 9: Smoking Status Care, Treatment, and Services .02.03.07--(1) Core 12: Electronic copy of Information Management .02.02.03 health information upon --(2), (3) request Core 13: Clinical summary Record of Care, Treatment, and after each office visit Services .01.01.01--(13) Menu 5: Access to health information (portal) Menu 7: Medication Medication Management .03.01.05-- reconciliation National Patient Safety Goal .03.06.01--(1), (3) Menu 8: Summary of Care Record Care, Treatment, and Services .06.02.05
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|