Loading...
Skip to main content
PhoneCall Us: (800) 964-6379 / (613) 727-4900 (local) HelpHelp (opens in a new window) FR AvatarLogin
Login Window
Forgot your password?
​

RFS 2024-01 - RFS 2024-01 Consulting Services - Info Exchange VAS HRM Optimization

RFS 2024-01 - RFS 2024-01 Consulting Services - Info Exchange VAS HRM Optimization
This solicitation is CLOSED

Basic Information

Reference Number

0000275353

Issuing Organization

OntarioMD Inc.

Owner Organization

OntarioMD Inc.

Solicitation Type

RFS - Request for Services (Formal)

Solicitation Number

RFS 2024-01

Title

RFS 2024-01 Consulting Services - Info Exchange VAS HRM Optimization

Source ID

PU.HL.ON.564307.C96862

Agreement Type

Broader Public Sector (BPS)

Details

Location

Canada, Ontario, Toronto

Delivery Point

Toronto

Purchase Type

One Time Only- Delivery Date:2024/09/16

Description

Request for Services

Consulting Services – Information Exchange, Value Added Services (HRM Optimization)









RFS Number:           2024-01
Issued:                    July 29, 2024
Closing Date:           August 21, 2024 9:00AM EDT
 
 


Table of Contents
1.     Introduction  3
1.1.       Invitation to Submit. 3
1.2.       About OntarioMD. 3
1.3.       Background. 4
2.     Procurement Process  6
2.1.       RFS Coordination. 6
2.2.       Procurement Timetable. 6
2.3.       Submission Requirements. 7
2.4.       Evaluation Process. 7
3.     Terms and Conditions  9
4.     Requirements  11
4.1.       Role. 11
4.2.       Scope of Work. 11
Appendix A – Standard Consulting Form   17
Appendix B – Conflict of Interest Declaration  18
Appendix C – References  19
Appendix D-1 - Mandatory Requirements Form   20
Appendix D-2 – Rated Criteria Form   21
Appendix D-3 - Presentation Format and Rated Criteria  24
Appendix E – Pricing  26
Appendix F– Proposed Conceptual Overview   27
 
  1. Introduction
    1. Invitation to Submit
This Request for Services (“RFS”) is an invitation to vendors to submit proposals for the services and deliverables as described in Section 4.

In responding to this RFS, you will be deemed to have taken into account all the terms and conditions in the RFS and to be willing to enter a Statement of Work using the OntarioMD standard form for consulting contracts (Appendix A).
 
    1. About OntarioMD
OntarioMD (also referred to as OMD in this RFS) supports community-based clinicians and nurse practitioner practices with innovative digital health and quality improvement tools and approaches required to address their practice needs and reduce their administrative burden. Our priorities align with the province’s Patients Before Paperwork initiative to reduce paperwork that contributes to physician burnout. OMD’s most recent initiative is centered on helping clinicians select AI scribe solutions that align with their workflows, meet their practice needs, reduce their documentation burden and use the saved time on patient care or their wellness.
 
We have a successful track record in helping community-based physicians as well as nurse practitioners in all Ontario Health Teams adopt provincial digital health tools that are integrated with certified electronic medical records (EMRs) based on their needs. We are an important delivery partner for Ontario Health to deploy these tools on their behalf. These include the Digital Health Drug Repository (DHDR), EMR-Integrated eConsult, Health Report Manager (HRM®), Ontario Laboratories Information System (OLIS) and ONE® ID. OMD is also deploying third-party digital applications integrated with certified EMRs (also known as Contextual Launch services) such as Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Reports, ClinicalConnect, eForms, HPG/CHRIS (Health Provider Gateway/Client Health and Related Information System), and Ontario Telemedicine Network (OTN) eConsult. Our OMD Advisory Service, teams of digital health experts across Ontario, onboards clinicians to these tools and works with them to sustain and improve use of the tools. They have enrolled more than 20,000 clinicians in our programs who are realizing the value of our digital health services to enhance patient care. Our Peer Leader Program, a network of clinicians throughout Ontario, is another complimentary resource available to mentor clinicians to become better digital health users.
 
To support OMD’s priorities, our strategic plan for 2020-25 is based on three main strategic areas of focus:
 
  • Corporate growth and sustainability
  • Being a leading delivery partner
  • Digital health advocacy
 
OMD engages the community-based health care sector and related stakeholders about the best approaches to expand and integrate EMRs so that the greatest value is delivered to patients, clinicians, and the health system.
 
We remain focused on understanding and advocating for the needs of clinicians and their patients to make sure that technology continues to evolve to meet their needs now and into the future.

OMD is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ontario Medical Association. It is funded by the Province of Ontario.

For more information, please visit www.ontariomd.ca.
 
    1. Background
OMD conducts the certification of medical record systems used in the provision of care by community-based clinicians, including administrating the integration, deployment and adoption of key provincial Electronic Health Record (EHR) products and services.

Health Report Manager (HRM) represents one of numerous EHR products and services through which health information is exchanged. It is managed and operated by OMD, enabling clinicians to securely receive patient reports electronically from participating hospitals and independent health facilities. HRM now delivers over 3 million health reports per month from more that 600 sending facilities, to more that 14,000 community-based clinicians (more than 5,000 individual clinics).

In delivering these services, OMD collaborates directly with the Ministry of Health, Ontario Health, the Ontario Medical Association, industry vendors and stakeholders, and aligns to provincial EHR strategies, architecture and standards, applicable laws, and policies from regulatory colleges and authorities.

Information, including information exchange to and from community-based care settings, is fundamental to the integration of clinical information systems with the EHR. Integration enables accessibility to health data by care providers and patients and creates a foundation for analytics and, more recently, Artificial Intelligence.

As the demand for community-based information and/or integration with the EHR increases, determining who wants what information, and for what purposes, varies across care settings, and between care providers. Expectations differ further when considering information for secondary use (e.g.: research, health system planning). The broad adoption of clinical information systems and EHR solutions like HRM has further resulted in significant increases in the volume of information sent and received.

Community-based practices are now faced with a high volume of reports, contributing to administrative and cognitive load when searching for clinically relevant information. In 2023, OMD established an HRM Task Force to assess key factors contributing to administrative burden and to make recommendations to improve the clinician experience.

The HRM Task Force included clinicians, Chief Medical Information Officers (CMIOs), representatives from Ontario Health, EMR vendors, hospital information system (HIS) vendors, and OMD’s HRM and executive teams, producing two key reports with recommendations for 1) Sending Facility Standards and 2) EMR Usability.
 

Two of the priority recommendations are:
 
  1. Improved identification and management of duplicate or near-duplicate reports delivered through HRM.

    Patient encounters often result in the submission of multiple versions of the same health report for the same patient sent through HRM. This results in increased volumes and an administrative and cognitive load on clinicians determining if, and what, revisions have been made between versions. Report types could be text, structured text, rich text, or binary and so duplicates may not be readily identifiable.

    Clinicians seek reduction of duplicates and/or better tooling to identify variants.
 
  1. Improved management of PDF reports delivered through HRM.

    PDF is a common format for reports sent through HRM. Different types of PDF are sent based on numerous factors. While providing visually structured, readable reports familiar to users and care providers, they present significant challenges for search tools regularly executed by care providers e.g.: the ability to interpret PDFs, when generating preventative care reports across a patient cohort, based on data contained within the PDF reports.

    Clinicians require a solution that enables key data to be searchable from reports sent as PDF e.g.: through interpretation, translation or provision of companion data.

Important note: Reduction of duplicates, or provision of alternate file types at source (the sending facility) is a consideration, however such impacts are system wide (not just for reports sent to HRM). Revisions must also be conducted at all sending facilities (potentially hundreds) and issues like near duplicates will remain. The most optimal approach results from an aggregation of solutions that addresses not only what is sent by the sending facilities, but also an ability to adapt to what is received (by HRM and/or at the EMRs). That adaptability has many forward-looking applications for information sent to or from community-based clinical information systems.

This procurement seeks a service that while addressing near-term tactical remedies for HRM Optimization, also creates a foundational information exchange, value added service that is both expandable and extensible near, medium and long-term. The service must:

 
  1. Provide a foundation for assessing, analyzing, translating and/or reporting on information exchanged to or from community-based clinical information systems.
  2. Interoperate directly with HRM, to assess and implement solutions which address duplicate, near duplicate and PDF management recommendations in a proof-of-concept environment, reducing administrative burden and optimizing the community-based clinician experience.
  3. Assess the flow of health reports received and delivered through HRM for further optimization opportunities.



 
  1. Procurement Process
    1. RFS Coordination

Contact
Val Lesko
Manager Corporate Planning and Administration
Procurement@OntarioMD.com

Mailing Address
OntarioMD, Inc.
150 Bloor Street West, Suite 900
Toronto, ON M5S 3C1
 
    1. Procurement Timetable
The target completion dates for the procurement activities are listed below:

ActivityDate
Issue RFSJuly 29, 2024
Applicants Submit QuestionsAugust 5, 2024 at 13:00 EDT
Respond to Applicant’s QuestionsAugust 6, 2024
Closing Date for Receipt of SubmissionsAugust 21, 2024 at 9:00 EDT
Evaluate SubmissionsAugust 21 – 30, 2024
Respondent PresentationsSeptember 4 – 6, 2024
Select VendorSeptember 6, 2024
Begin Contract (1)September 16, 2024
Complete ContractDecember 16, 2024 
This RFS timetable is tentative only and may be changed by OMD at its sole discretion.

OMD may, in its sole discretion, extend the Contract End Date for up to two (2) months by giving written notice to the Vendor not less than ten (10) days before the initial assignment end date.

Notes:
1. Subject to contract execution
 
 
    1. Submission Requirements
Written submissions are requested from vendors who are compliant with the OMD submission requirements described below (Respondents). Respondents must order their submissions in the same order as the order of information requested below.

Respondents must submit their submissions in two separate parts via email as per Section 3.3 of this RFS. One part will contain the price portion of the submission using Appendix E. The other part will contain the rest of the submission.  Each part must be submitted in a separate electronic file in Microsoft Word format or portable document format (pdf).

 
  1. Cover Letter
This must include an introduction to the respondent and a clear statement that the Terms and Conditions of this RFS have been read, understood and agreed to in their entirety and confirming that the information provided in the submission is accurate. The letter must be signed by an authorized signing officer of the respondent. Signing may be done electronically.
 
  1. Respondent Profile
The Respondent Profile must include a brief description of the Respondent’s type of business and a Respondent’s contact for all questions and clarifications arising from the submission. The contact information must include the person’s name, title, address, email and telephone number.
 
  1. Conflict of Interest Declaration
Any Respondent who has or may have a conflict of interest must disclose such conflicts(s). All respondents must sign and include the Conflict of Interest Declaration attached in “Appendix B – Conflict of Interest Declaration”.
 
  1. Respondent References
Complete and attach Appendix C – References providing references as requested therein.
 
  1. Mandatory Requirements and Rated Criteria
Using Appendix D-1 – Mandatory Requirements Form and D-2 – Rated Criteria Form, provide responses to the mandatory requirements and rated criteria.  A soft copy of the template can be provided upon request. Please note that a resumé for each team member must also be included.
 
  1. Price
Complete the pricing information using Appendix E - Pricing. All dollar amounts are to be stated in Canadian funds.

As noted above, Appendix E is to be submitted as a separate file.
 
    1. Evaluation Process
The evaluation of the submission will be conducted by an Evaluation Panel consisting of OMD staff and external stakeholders. A submission must meet the requirements of each applicable stage to proceed to the next stage.

Stage 1:
1A - Consists of validating that all submission requirements are included and complete
(See Section 2.3 – Submission Requirements)

1B - Consists of validating that all Mandatory Requirements have been met and confirmed
(See Appendix D-1 - Mandatory Requirements)
Only respondents meeting both the Submission Requirements and the Mandatory Requirements will proceed to the next stage.

Stage 2: Consists of scoring by the Evaluation Panel for each qualified submission with respect to the respondent’s Rated Criteria (Appendix D-2 – Rated Criteria).

Stage 3: Upon successful completion of Stage 2, only the top three (3) ranked respondents who meet a minimum score of 41 out of 60 in Stage 2 will move forward to this presentation stage (Stage 3). Where less than three (3) respondents achieve the minimum score, the number of respondents invited to provide a presentation will be reduced accordingly.

Core team members of the respondent must attend the presentation stage. The presentations are meant to validate the respondent’s and their team members’ capabilities and support statements in the written submission. The presentation will be conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams. The presentation will be scored (See Appendix D-3 Presentation Format and Rated Criteria).

Stage 4: Consists of scoring the pricing submitted by the respondents invited to present in Stage 3.
Stage 5: Consists of verifying reference information for the respondent with the highest combined score from Stage 2, 3 and 4. Subject to satisfactory reference checks, the respondent will be selected and invited to finalize and enter into the Agreement with OMD. Unsatisfactory reference checks will disqualify the respondent from the selection process and reference information for the next highest combined score will be verified and moved forward following the same steps as for the highest combined score respondent. References will only be contacted if a respondent is considered at Stage 5.

The points allocated to each stage of the evaluation process are as follows:
  
Evaluation ProcessPointsStage 1A - Submission Requirements
(Section 2.3 of this RFS)Pass / Fail
Stage 1B – Mandatory Requirements
(See Appendix D-1)Pass / Fail
Stage 2 - Rated Criteria
(See Appendix D-2)60
Stage 3 – Presentation
(See Appendix D-3)20
Stage 4 - Price20
Stage 5 –Cumulative Score and Reference Verification Pass / Fail

 
  1. Terms and Conditions
 
  1. No Contract A/Contract B Scenario

The RFS does not create a Contract A/Contract B scenario, that is to say, that this RFS, if acceptable to a Respondent, does not create a valid and enforceable contract between a Respondent and OMD when a proposal is submitted that is compliant with the requirements of this RFS. See below for the reserved rights of OMD.
 
  1. Confidentiality

OMD reserves all rights in respect of this RFS. Respondents to this RFS may not reproduce, modify, disclose, distribute or publish any portion of this RFS or any information about without the prior written approval of OMD, save and except for the strict purpose of preparing a response, and provided always that any such reproduction, modification, disclosure, distribution or publication of this RFS shall only be made to, or for, a Respondent’s employees or advisors on a strict need-to-know basis, each of whom the Respondent agrees to bind to these same confidentiality obligations.

Respondents, or other RFS recipients, may not use the name of OMD or refer to this RFS in any advertisement or other promotional messages without the prior written consent of OMD.

Information pertaining to OMD obtained by the Respondent as a result of participation in this RFS is confidential and must not be disclosed without written authorization from OMD.

Collection and Use of Personal Information

Respondents are solely responsible for familiarizing themselves, and ensuring that they comply, with the laws applicable to the collection and dissemination of information, including resumes and other personal information concerning employees and employees of any subcontractors. If this RFS requires Respondents to provide OMD with personal information of employees who have been included as resources in response to this RFS, Respondents will ensure that they have obtained written consent from each of those employees before forwarding such personal information to OMD. Such written consent are to specify that the personal information may be forwarded to OMD for the purposes of responding to this RFS and used by OMD for the purposes set out in the RFS. OMD may, at any time, request the original consent or copies of the original consents from Respondents.
 
  1. Please provide an electronic copy (via email) as indicated in Section 2.2 to:

Val Lesko
Manager, Corporate Planning and Administration
Procurement@OntarioMD.com

All communications regarding this RFS must be directed by email to this address.
 
  1. We regret extensions cannot be granted. Submissions received after the deadline will be sent a notification email that their submission will not be considered.
 
  1. Facsimile submissions in whole, or in part, will not be accepted.
 
  1. Respondents that are selected to move to Stage 3 of the evaluation process will be required to make their principal team members available for a presentation (tentatively scheduled as indicated in Section 2.2) and respond to questions from OMD.
 
  1. Other than the contact named in 2. above, a Respondent may not contact or attempt to contact, during the RFS process, anyone else at OMD, Ontario Health, the Ministry of Health or the Ontario Medical Association for the purposes of obtaining information that relates to this RFS. Any respondent who fails to comply with this requirement will be disqualified.
 
  1. OMD, without liability, cost or penalty, may at any time prior to, or after, closing time:
    • Alter any dates in this RFS;
    • Cancel this RFS;
    • Amend or supplement this RFS;
    • Cancel this RFS and negotiate directly with one or more respondents;
    • Issue a new RFS for the same or similar services.
 
  1. The submission with the lowest cost may not necessarily be the winning bid. While the cost is an important element in the selection process, it is to be clearly understood from the evaluation weighting in Section 2.4 that there are other evaluation criteria in the RFS that OMD will consider in evaluating submissions.
 
  1. OMD, without liability, cost or penalty, may, in its sole discretion, waive irregularities in any respondent’s submission, including errors or irregularities that make the submission fundamentally non-compliant.
 
  1. OMD, without liability, cost or penalty, may, in its sole discretion and at any time after submission, seek clarification from any respondent with respect to its submission and information about a respondent from third parties with experience with the respondent. Any written information received by OMD from a respondent in response to a request for clarification from OMD shall be considered an integral part of the respondent’s submission and any information from third parties may legitimately be factored into OMD’s evaluation.
 
  1. OMD may decline to accept the submission of a respondent that has threatened to sue OMD in connection with any work that is similar to the subject matter of the RFS.
 
  1. OMD may verify any respondent claim or statement by whatever means OMD deems appropriate, including contacting references other than those offered by the respondent, and may reject any respondent statement or claim, if in the judgment of OMD, the statement or claim is unwarranted or not credible.
 
  1. OMD assumes no responsibility for any costs associated with a respondent’s response to this RFS.
 
  1. OMD’s standard Letter of Engagement referenced in Appendix “A” is available through the following portal link:

https://www.ontariomd.ca/documents/letter%20of%20agreement%20-%20corporation%20-%20march%204%202022.pdf
 
  1. The respondent must provide a statement in their response that they have read, understood and accept the terms and conditions contained in the Letter of Engagement and that the respondent will, if requested by OMD, sign and enter into this Agreement with OMD and be bound by the provisions of the Letter of Engagement. Signing may be done electronically. The RFS and Respondent’s submission will become part of the Letter of Engagement.
 
  1. Requirements
    1. Role
The successful Respondent will work directly with various departments at OMD and supply the necessary team members and services to complete the deliverables defined in Section 4.2 Scope of Work of this RFS.  Any services subcontracted by the successful Respondent in completion of deliverables will be the responsibility of the Respondent. The successful Respondent must identify two roles on their team: 1) Business Lead who will be the vendor liaison for OMD’s Executive Lead, and Project Manager/Lead who will act as a primary point of contact for the OMD Project Manager.
 
    1. Scope of Work
The Scope of Work for this Information Exchange, Value Added Service (HRM Optimization) initiative is expected to build a partnership with a vendor that progresses over three phases.

Phase 1:    Proof of Concept (3 months)
Phase 2:    Proof of Concept Expansion (4 months)
Phase 3:    Provincial Expansion

Conclusion of one phase does not imply continuation with successive phases. Transition between project phases will require assessment of the learnings and outcomes of the concluding phase, re-assessment of scope, financial planning and the necessary approvals to proceed.

Successful outcomes from one or more of the three phases of this Scope of Work may lead to future expansion.

Phases Detailed Deliverable

Phase 1 – Proof of Concept
(POC)
3 months duration:

Objectives and Deliverables
The successful Respondent that enters into a Letter of Engagement will provide consulting, as well as a managed or hosted Software as a Service (collectively, the “Service”), to complete the following objectives and deliverables:
 
  1. Interoperate securely with HRM to assess and identify health reports sent from one health report Sending Facility (SF) and delivered via HRM to known clinician recipients, using community-based clinical information systems (e.g.: EMRs) known as Receiving Facilities (RF) within the SF’s catchment area:
 
    • Refer to Appendix F – Proposed Conceptual Overview
    • OMD will provide access to existing HRM development and testing environments including test data.
    • One health report SF will be identified by OMD, with approximate volumes of 75,000 health reports per month, resulting in delivery to approximately 1,500 recipient clinicians.
    • The Service will:
      • Publish secure APIs through which HRM will exchange messages using mutually agreeable standards, e.g.: JSON (JavaScript Object Notation).
      • Utilize modern authentication techniques and protocols.
      • Interpret health-care specific messaging and terminology standards, including: LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes), SNOMED-CT (Systemized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms), HL7v2, and FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources).
      • Receive messages in production from HRM that originated from the targeted SF
    • Messages routed through HRM conform to:
 
  1. Assess and identify duplicate and near-duplicate reports of varying report types (e.g.: text, binary, structure, unstructured) received from, and sent to community-based clinicians.
     
    • Working with OMD, the Respondent will propose and implement option(s) for duplicate management or near-duplicate management.
    • OMD will identify up to 200 targeted clinicians to assess the implemented options (from approximately 1,500 clinician recipients associated with reports delivered from the targeted SF).
    • Near-duplicates refers to minimal change from the prior version (e.g.: added/changed date, added signature, added/changed allergy, etc,).
    • For targeted reports, the options could consider augmented artefacts and/or additional message attribution for delivery back to HRM (along with the original artefact) and ultimate delivery as appropriate by HRM back to the intended recipient’s RF.
    • Working with OMD, conduct User Acceptance Testing (UAT) with the targeted clinicians to assess viability and value of the options presented.
    • Learnings from the UAT may inform iterative option variants.
 
  1. Assess and identify PDF reports received from, and sent to, community-based clinicians. Various PDF report formats should be anticipated.
     
    • Working with OMD, the Respondent will propose and implement option(s) for managing PDF report delivery.
    • OMD will identify up to 200 targeted clinicians to assess the implemented options (from approximately 1,500 clinician recipients associated with reports delivered from the targeted SF).
    • Options may depend on health report type (e.g.: discharge summary vs. diagnostic imaging report), or PDF document type.
    • For targeted reports, the options could consider translated, converted or summarized artefacts in alternate formats (e.g.: Rich Text) and/or additional message attribution for delivery back to HRM (along with the original artefact) and ultimate delivery as appropriate by HRM back to the intended recipient’s RF.
    • Working with OMD, conduct User Acceptance Testing (UAT) with the targeted clinicians to assess viability and value of the options presented.
    • Learnings from the UAT may inform iterative option variants.
 
  1. Evaluation of the message delivery paradigm before, and during, each phase will be critical to both demonstration of value as well as expansion. The successful Respondent will:
    • Analyze and produce utilization reports including:
      • An overall interpretive assessment of all reports flowing from the targeted SF, identifying message patterns, health report types and health report delivery scenarios, highlighting further optimization opportunities for all reports originating from the target SF (including at least duplicate, near duplicate and PDF report delivery).
      • A SF specific utilization report to be sent to the SF by OMD at the conclusion of the POC.
      • A clinician recipient utilization report to be sent to the recipients participating in objectives 2 and 3 above by OMD at the conclusion of the POC.
    • OMD will identify and engage clinicians/clinics based on high impact, statistical evidence determined before, as well as informed during, the POC.
    • It is anticipated that clinician participation in the POC will be based on a pre-determined, known outcome of the options being implemented for how duplicate, near-duplicate and PDFs will be managed, as determined in objective 2 and 3 above. (Note: Providing clinicians with preference management options for how reports will be handled is expected in Phase 2: POC+).
    • Recommend future optimization opportunities determined from the analysis of reports delivered through HRM.
    • Contribute to a POC evaluation report, summarizing HRM Optimization options, lessons learned, UAT outcomes, projected physician impact and planning for successive phases.
    • Contribute to planning for future phase(s) including scope, timing, financials and other noteworthy contributing factors from the evaluation report.
 
  1. Provide a foundation for value added information exchange, assessing, analyzing, translating and/or reporting on information exchanged via HRM, or to or from community-based clinical information systems.
    • The Service built or leveraged during this POC must be easily expandable to additional health report SFs and recipient’s RFs.
    • The Service should be extensible to additional message optimization opportunities revealed through the POC or successive phases.
    • This Service must also contemplate emerging information exchange value added services through HRM, or to or from community-based clinical information systems.
    • The services should be able to identify and categorize different data received, recognize and codify or translate to different data or terminology standards such as LOINC, ICD, SNOMED, etc.


Deliverables
 
    1. The Service is established in a production environment:
    • Can send and receive messages with HRM.
    • Is receiving reports from the named SF.
    • An overall interpretive assessment utilization report described in objective 4 is produced at the instantiation of the POC and prior to implementation of clinicians.
    • The necessary Privacy Impact and Threat Risk assessments have been conducted, provided to OMD and high risks remediated.
    • Options for managing duplicate, near duplicate, and PDF report delivery are identified in collaboration with OMD and implemented for participating clinicians.
    • Contribute towards supporting a simple and intuitive physician experience that not only helps achieve technical objectives, but also helps reduce administrative burden dealing with duplicate and PDF reports.
    1. The following reports are provided:
    • A Solution Architecture Design document that describes at minimum, the Service, its service delivery partners, its components and varied technologies, the messaging and standards utilized along with an associated sequence diagram. The design should contemplate the future scope of the two (2) POC+ and provincial expansion phases.
    • Prepare and maintain project status reporting, including Risks, Assumptions, Issues and Dependencies (RAID) in collaboration with OMD and maintained at a frequency to be determined, including at the conclusion of the POC.
    • An overall interpretive assessment and utilization report described in objective 4 is provided at the conclusion of the POC highlighting variances post implementation of options.
    • A SF-specific utilization report and clinician utilization report for participating clinicians is produced for delivery by OMD to the stakeholders.
    1. In collaboration with OMD, contribute towards the development of the following artefacts:
    • A POC evaluation report, summarizing HRM Optimization options, lessons learned, UAT outcomes, projected physician impact and planning for successive phases.
    • A proposal for Phase 2: POC+ and revised model for Phase 3: Provincial Expansion including scope, timing, financials and other noteworthy contributing factors from the evaluation report.

Successive Phases
Deliverables for successive phases will be planned and proposed collaboratively as the initiative progresses.
For the purposes of planning, it is expected that the scope from Phase 1: POC will continue to scale as described below.
Any expansion or extension of The Service to new information exchange objectives will be managed on a per case basis.

Phase 2 – Proof of Concept Expansion
(POC+)
4 months duration:

Phase 2: POC+ will depend on the proposal and approval to proceed by the end of Phase 1, with the scope anticipated below, including associated timing, and costs.
It is anticipated that HRM Optimization options revealed in Phase 1 POC for duplicate, near-duplicate and PDF management will result in enhanced message flow for health reports delivered through HRM downstream to recipient RFs (i.e.: EMRs). This could include additional attribution and/or companion artefacts, e.g.: the introduction of “duplicate” flags or translated reports.

In this POC+, OMD will engage EMR vendors for improved interpretation and management of newly enhanced message flows delivering health reports through HRM to recipient RFs (i.e.: EMRs).

The Service delivered in Phase 1 will continue, with the following incremental scope anticipated:
 
  1. In the Phase 1: POC, clinicians were knowingly presented with pre-determined outcomes based on the options being evaluated. Based on the viable options, the Service will now present participating clinicians with preference management options for duplicate, near-duplicate and PDF management, e.g.: opt-in/opt-out or specific handling options. The Service will use clinician preference management settings in the optimization of reports flowing through HRM (for duplicate, near-duplicate and PDF management use cases).
     
  2. It is also envisioned that by-recipient utilization reports developed in Phase 1: POC will also be made available to clinicians, likely through the same preference management interface, and that by-SF reports will be made available to OMD through an administrative or reporting interface.
 
  1. The Service will be expanded in scale for up to three (3) SFs, and up to the full number of clinician recipients associated with the health reports originating from those SFs.
    • For the purpose of positioning, scale, and pricing, assume approximately 75,000 health reports delivered from each SF per month, which are associated with approximately 1,500 clinician recipients per SF.
 
  1. The POC evaluation report and lessons learned will be revised as required.
 
  1. A benefits evaluation will be conducted in collaboration with OMD for the options and the preference management features implemented in the POC+. This evaluation will represent system impact arising from clinical engagement, value assessment, etc.
 
  1. Planning for Phase 3: Provincial Expansion will be prepared collaboratively with OMD and other stakeholders including scope, timing, one-time and operational costs.
     
Based on the learnings from Phase 1: POC, ‘future HRM optimization opportunities’ may also be introduced in concurrent, iterative streams.

Additional information exchange objectives to, or from, community-based clinical information systems may also be planned.
Phase 3 -
Provincial Expansion Provincial Expansion

The Service delivered in Phase 2: POC will continue, with the following Incremental Scope anticipated:
 
  1. Phase 3: Provincial Expansion of duplicate, near-duplicate and PDF management, including preference management will depend on approval to proceed by the end of Phase 2: POC+, inclusive of timing, one-time and operational costs.
  2. For the purpose of positioning, scale, and pricing, assume 3 million reports per month, to 15,000 clinician recipients.

Based on the learnings from Phase 1: POC and Phase 2: POC+, ‘future HRM optimization opportunities’ may also be introduced in concurrent, iterative streams.

Additional information exchange objectives to, or from, community-based clinical information systems may also be planned.




 Appendix A – Standard Consulting Form
OMD’s standard Letter of Engagement is available at:

https://www.ontariomd.ca/documents/letter%20of%20agreement%20-%20corporation%20-%20march%204%202022.pdf
 

Appendix B – Conflict of Interest Declaration
Conflict of Interest includes any situation or circumstance where, in relation to this RFS process, the Respondent has an unfair advantage or engages in conduct, directly or indirectly, that may give it an unfair advantage, including (i) possessing or having access to information in the preparation of its Submission that is confidential to OntarioMD (OMD) and is not available to other Respondents; (ii) communicating with any official or representative of OMD or members of the Evaluation Team or other person connected with the RFS other than the contact specified in the RFS, with a view to influencing them and obtaining  preferred treatment in this RFS process; or (iii) engaging in conduct that compromises or could be seen to compromise the integrity of the open and competitive RFS process.

☐ The Respondent hereby confirms that there is not now, nor was there in the past, any actual or potential Conflict of Interest relating to the preparation of our Submission, nor do I/we foresee any actual or potential Conflict of Interest in completing the Scope of Work outlined in the RFS.

 or if applicable,

☐ The following is a list of actual or potential Conflicts of Interest relating to the preparation of our Submission or in completing the Scope of Work outlined in the RFS.
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________


Respondent acknowledges that where the Respondent fails to provide confirmation as required herein or makes any misrepresentation or omission regarding any Conflict of Interest, OMD shall be entitled, within its entire discretion, and in addition to any other remedy that may be available to the OMD in law or in equity, to disqualify this Response.
                                                           

Name of Respondent:   ______________________________
           
           
________________________________             
Signature of Respondent Representative                                   
I have authority to bind the Respondent   



_____________________________    
Date




 
 

Appendix C – References
The respondent shall provide customer references for the experience identified in Appendix D-1 Mandatory Requirements Form. Respondents must provide full contact information.

For each customer, please provide the following:
  • Customer – Name, Address
  • Contact Person – name, title, number, email

Appendix D-1 - Mandatory Requirements Form
Each proposal must include a single, completed Mandatory Requirements Form. All criteria must be met to proceed to the next phase of evaluation

Respondent Name:  

For each criterion, responses should go beyond simple acknowledgement and provide sufficient substantiation to establish confidence (e.g.: mentioning details of a specific project, explaining what was done to achieve that objective).
CriterionResponse
  1. Provide verifiable evidence of your organization’s experience in the past five (5) years delivering information exchange, value added projects in production that are similar in nature to the Scope of Work in Section 4.2.

    Responses should state transactional volumes for the identified initiatives/solutions over what period and when, which must exceed 1 million transactions per month preferably in a Canadian health-care setting.
 
  1. Provide verifiable evidence of at least one example where your proposed solution is integrated directly in production with one or more jurisdictional EHR services.

    Responses should indicate which jurisdictional EHR services were integrated, for what scope, and the service which your organization’s solution provided.
 
  1. Confirm that any data collected, used, and disclosed in operation of the Service will be securely partitioned from other clients using the Service or its dependent components.


 
 

Appendix D-2 – Rated Criteria Form
Each proposal must include a single, completed Rated Criteria Form, according to the instructions set below.
Respondents should consider how their response takes into account the scope of work, listed under 4.2 Scope of Work. Respondents should provide all the necessary information required for the evaluation team to conduct a thorough, scored assessment.


This section is scored. For each criterion, responses should go beyond simple acknowledgement and provide sufficient substantiation to enable the evaluation team to assess and score accordingly. (e.g.: mentioning details of a specific project, explaining what was done to achieve that objective).
CriterionResponse
Organizational Experience
  1. Describe your organization’s experience in health care in Ontario and in other jurisdictions in Canada, including a sample of clients, and your organization’s role in provision of the services.
 
  1. Describe specifically, the health-care organizational entities in Ontario with which you have directly contracted, e.g.: Ministries, agencies, hospitals, authorities, etc.
 
  1. Describe your organization’s experience in developing information exchange strategies, roadmaps and adoption plans for public sector organizations with internal and external stakeholders.


Team Experience
  1. Describe the primary team structure, including its members, subcontractors, their role in Phase 1: POC, and how the working relationship with OMD will be structured.

    Once a submission has been accepted, project staff may not be substituted without written agreement from OMD.
 
    • Please identify if any component of this project will be outsourced or subcontracted. In addition, please state the following:
    1. Name and location of the outsourced company or subcontractor
    2. Length and nature of the relationship with the respondent
    3. Approximate percentage of your revenue, in your current financial year, will be paid to subcontractors (%):
    4. Whether you sign reciprocal hold harmless agreements: (Yes/No)
    5. Whether you ensure that subcontractors have their own errors and omissions and general liability insurance: (Yes/No)
    • If you answered “Yes” to 5 above, what is the limit of liability that subcontractors must purchase?: $


Service Delivery
  1. Describe how the Service functions, including:
    • Key components, partnerships leveraged (e.g.: cloud services), etc.
    • What technologies are anticipated for Phase 1: POC and how will they be used?
    • The technologies that can be leveraged as the scope of work described in this RFS expands or extends
    • The ability to identify and categorize different data received, recognize, codify or translate it to different data or terminology standards such as LOINC, ICD, SNOMED etc.
 
  1. Describe how you would structure the delivery approach for Phase 1: POC as described in Section 4.2, with clear articulation of the steps and deliverables. 

Your response should be thorough, and include at minimum: 
    • What discovery must be done and how this will be accomplished?
    • How will stakeholder feedback be distilled in order to inform a comprehensive service?
    • The approach for prioritizing the optimization recommendations.
 
  1. Describe thoroughly the planning assumptions, major risks, and mitigations.
 
  1. Describe the primary critical success factors.
 
  1. Provide a detailed, proposed work plan for Phase 1: POC, including high-level tasks, milestones, and timelines to accomplish the goals and deliverables described in this RFS. The intent is to complete the project by the contract end date as defined in the procurement timetable. Respondents are to give their rationale for the timelines.



Appendix D-3 - Presentation Format and Rated Criteria
Respondents selected for the presentation stage will be evaluated and scored according to the instructions and criteria set below.

The entire meeting duration for the presentation will be 60 minutes. The agenda must include the following items:
  1. Organizational Experience (approx. 10 min.): The Respondent will describe their organization’s presence in the broader Canadian health-care landscape and why their services should be selected, elaborating on the mandatory experience named in Appendix D-1 Mandatory Requirements Form.
  2. Team Structure and Prior Experience (approx. 20 min.): Using the team structure included in Appendix D-2 Rated Criteria, each core team member will give a brief explanation of their proposed role and how their prior related experience will be applied to the Scope of Work described in Section 4.2.
  3. Demonstration (approx. 20 min.): Provide a demonstration which highlights the core components and features of the Service, its versatility in addressing information exchange challenges applicable to the Ontario landscape and how (or the approach for how) it is envisioned the Scope of Work described in Section 4.2 will be addressed. This should be accomplished with two use cases:
      1. POC-related use case: Documents of a variety of formats are collected, examined and categorized based on various characteristics or content. Based on rules for the various categories, documents are summarized or transformed into an alternate format. Variables such as document formats, categories, rules, etc. to be chosen by the Respondent.
      2. Forward looking use case: A use case which highlights the extensibility, based on the current capabilities of your solution, drawing on your experience and understanding of information exchange between community-based care and the jurisdictional EHR.
  4. Q&A: Time allowing, questions from the evaluation team or the Respondent will be deferred to the end of the entire presentation. Questions must be answered in the time remaining.
A copy of the presentation material (e.g.: slides) will be shared with OMD by the respondent at the conclusion of the meeting.
The following criteria will be scored:
 

Rated Criterion
Organizational Experience
  1. Why should your organization be selected, based on your prior experience, and how is the Service positioned for growth? Give two learning experiences applicable to the Scope of Work in Section 4.2.

Team Structure and Prior Experience
  1. Each core team member identified in the team structure (provided in Appendix D-2 Rated Criteria) will present their role, the company (if subcontracted), how their prior skills and experience will be leveraged, and at least one lesson learned that is applicable to the Scope of Work in Section 4.2.

    A supplementary table summarizing team member experience can also be provided to complement the individual presentations.

Demonstration
The demo will be scored on the following:
  1. POC-related use case:
    • How data is collected and partitioned securely.
    • How data is interpreted and categorized upon which to apply rules for handling, translation or transformation.
    • How data assurance impacts interpretation, translation or transformation activities, and which tools are used to ensure the highest assurance.
    • Show a before and after example of how a document is, or could be, translated or transformed in consideration of the scope in Section 4.2.
    • Show a sample report/dashboard conveying statistical learnings from data collected.
  2. Forward looking use case:
    • Applicability of the use case chosen (real or envisioned) to exchange information between community-based care and the EHR (through HRM or otherwise).
    • Explain how the Service uses key technologies such as OCR, NLP, ML, LLM, AI (or other) and whether it is currently available within the system.
    • Explain how data can be codified or transformed to different data or data terminology standards such as LOINC, ICD, SNOMED, etc.




Appendix E – Pricing
A Respondent’s Pricing for Phase 1: POC should include all potential costs. No additional amounts above those submitted in this table will be accepted. All dollar amounts must be in Canadian funds and should not include applicable taxes.


Phase 1:
Provide a fixed price for each of the three deliverables described in Section 4.2.Amount
Deliverable 1.1 - The Service is established in a production environment.$
Deliverable 1.2 – Reports (Solution Architecture Design Document, Project Status Reporting, Overall Interpretive Assessment and Utilization Report, SF-specific Utilization Report and Clinician Utilization Report)$
Deliverable 1.3 - Supporting OMD to develop the POC Evaluation Report, and proposal for Phase 2.$
Grand Total$

A Respondent’s Pricing Model for Phase 2: POC+ and Phase 3: Provincial Expansion should include all potential costs, one-time and recurring. All dollar amounts must be in Canadian funds and include applicable taxes. Scope and pricing will be re-affirmed during planning and approval for each phase, however they are to be included here to position the cost of scale based on the scope provided.

Phase 2 and 3  (See details in Section 4.2)Response
Phase 2: POC+
 
    • Provide a pricing model, including a total, projected, incremental cost for expansion based on current understanding and the ‘Incremental Scope’ described in Section 4.2, Phase 2: POC+
    • Provide assumptions
$
Phase 3: Provincial Expansion
 
    • Provide a pricing model inclusive of applicable taxes, including a total, projected, incremental cost for 12 months for expansion based on current understanding and the ‘Incremental Scope’ described in Section 4.2, Phase 3: Provincial Expansion
    • Provide assumptions
$

 
 

Appendix F– Proposed Conceptual Overview
The following diagram represents a conceptual model for how the POC/POC+ could be envisioned. Alternate proposed models will be considered. This model is subject to change based on learnings as the various phases progress.

Please see uploaded document for diagram.

 

 See more

Dates

Publication

2024/07/29 02:54:21 PM EDT

Bid Intent

Optional

Bid Intent Deadline

2024/08/21 09:00:00 AM EDT

Question Acceptance Deadline

2024/08/05 01:00:00 PM EDT

Questions are submitted online

No

Closing Date

2024/08/21 09:00:00 AM EDT

Contact Information

Val Lesko

416-623-1248

procurement@ontariomd.com

Bid Submission Process

Bid Submission Type

Physical Bid Submission

Additional Bidding Instructions

Please submit questions and complete bid via email as instructed within the RFS.

 See more
© MERX - All rights reserved. No part of the information on this Web Site may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of MERX and the Minister of the participating government department (if applicable). MERX, the Minister nor the Contracting Authority will assume responsibility or liability for the accuracy of the information contained in the publication.

We use cookies and other similar technology to deliver our online services. Essential cookies are used to enable you to access and navigate our site. These are necessary and are always on. We also use functional, analytics, and marketing cookies when we have your consent to do so. For more information on how we use cookies, please consult our Privacy Policy.