Clinical Quality Information (CQI) SWOT

Draft 5/11/2015

STRENGTHS / WEAKNESSES / OPPORTUNITIES / THREATS
The topic of Quality is timely, relevant, and international in scope. / The scope of quality is sufficiently broad that CQI has dependencies on activities of multiple other WGs. Within HL7 there is limited improved understanding of the domain and scope of the workgroup but there are still some gaps. / Provide Continue providing education within HL7 concerning healthcare quality and with external audiences regarding the electronic standards to capture and exchange healthcare quality information. / Standards for quality continue to evolve are nascent and are likely to change both in evolutionary and revolutionary fashionand are likely to continue to change.
Speed required for standard development to support US programs.
The CQI and CDS WGs together used the SAIF model to create a strategy for all related standards to consistently address (1) Metadata, (2) Expression Language and (3) Data Model. / The Data Model (QUICK, FHIR Quality Profile) is still evolving. / Consolidate standards around healthcare quality and solidify the Data Model (QUICK, FHIR Quality Profile). / Competing data models require harmonization.
Outstanding mix of expertise and perspective: measure developers [physician, hospital, health plan], vendors, clinical terminologists, and quality data receivers, regulators. / Limited stakeholder (clinicians, consumers) representation and and participation;– technical standards expertise andlimited users’ experiences. /
  • Encourage greater stakeholder participation in CQI WG.
  • Indirectly, the ONC Jira commenting process encourages newer opportunities for real users to comment on CQI-related standards.
  • Reach out internationally for increased input.Consolidate standards around healthcare quality
/ Large volume of work to be completed,
Work is driven by US programs - but the workgroup needs to include the international perspective.
Access to health care professional input - clinical and workflow / Young workgroup / Harmonize and influence other HL7 workgroups (CDS, EHR, SD) and external healthcare quality stakeholders / Work is driven by US programs - but the workgroup needs to include the international perspective
New Group - engaged, excited, open to ideas; fresh perspective / Limited knowledge of HL7 processes / Coordinate end-to-end process for quality measurement (ie, include clinical decision support) / Speed required for standard development to support US programs
Cross membership in other Standard Development Organizations, such as ISO, IHE / Participating in multiple organizations is challenging for many.
Assuring continuity among the different organizations.Limited historical knowledge of adopted standards / Enhance data models used for healthcare quality from multiple perspectives.. / Work to be transitioned originated elsewhere so there is a potential for parallel competing processes within HL7Maintaining the knowledge base requires continuity and continued member participation in SDOs.
Member involvement in their national projects. / Limited availability of resources and availability to do work. / Expand international participation and engagement. / Quickly changing landscape and regulatory requirements.

Page | 1