Yes - @Evan_Minty happy to connect at the symposium.
Regarding Work Group – I think that is a really good idea and we have a WG http://www.ohdsi.org/web/wiki/doku.php?id=projects:workgroups:quality-measures but we have not met yet. The reason is we tried to build a measure at the OHDSI face to face spring 2017 in Atlanta - and found the exercise very difficult.
What we learnt is – that we had two options. Build measures to the detail specification of the measure stewards manual, OR to build measures the OHDSI way. E.g. the HEDIS measure specification manual would be 1,000s of pages, with some measure specification going for 100s of pages - this is difficult, mostly because of the detail. Alternative is to “approximate” it using the OHDSI, by leveraging the OMOP CDM standard vocabularies for example with the hierarchy’s. When we went thru the exercise we concluded that it is possible to build the measures using OMOP CDM, but the level of details makes it difficult and this task becomes not a scientific task, but a technical task that a voluntary community is not interested in pursuing. The general consensus was that it maybe best to do commission this as a paid service.
There were also some additional considerations. e.g. some of the measure specifications required rules like checking for a procedure in the same visit as a procedure. The OHDSI tools like Atlas did not support these rules at that time (but now do! https://github.com/OHDSI/Atlas/issues/454) .
We need a lot of new functionality like above before beginning a workgroup that implements complex specifications e.g. “Gaps in care”. i.e. an eligible Diabetic person who has a gap in HbA1c testing, then we need two cohort (denominator and numerator – and difference between them). HEDIS measure specifications will require the ability to union, intersect or subtract cohorts from each other.
