Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
  • Meeting Information

Date:

April 15, 2010

Time:

11 AM PDT/1 PM CDT/2 PM EDT

Attending:  James Fiore, Annette Gippe, Tarang Shah, Carl Singer, Valerie Smothers, Mike Zarski

Agenda Items

1 Implementation updates

Valerie asked those on the call to provide an implementation update. Mike commented that numbers from Medscape and CEcity are increasing. He added that he planned to identify the next biggest source of online credits and reach out to the to see if they can replicate the implementation.

James commented that they are starting to work with Howard Tanzman to get CME data from American College of Surgeons. They have a system to collect CME and are using the College as a primary source. Any other data fellows catalog would be transmitted. That will satisfy the American Board of Surgey requirmeent for 60 hours of CME credit. They are still working on format details. The operative reporting project just finished.

Valerie asked if changes to MoC would impact the activity report.

James replied that it is too early to tell. There are 24 certifying boards and 22 different sets of rules for MoC. He added it is entirely possible that standards will need to change. What compliance means varies.

Annette commented that AOA continuous certification (OCC) will have parameters following the activity report standard. There are no issues so far. Mike agreed that the information conveyed is pretty simple. Their boards are barely able to implement one solution let alone vet multiple solutions. Boards are going with AOA CAP, which follows a variety of standards already integrated with their system. It si built on the CECity platform. Specialty boards have access to internal IT resources and direct access to the data, which minimizes the need for standards. There are no translations that need to occur.

Carl commented that they continuing to use the standard as they bring in 3rd party content. There are no implementation issues. There is some confusion with extensions they’ve had to make: tracking pieces for the LMS, pseudo security for verification (where the xml is coming from). They wrap the activity report with the things they require in their system. Payload in a larger xml document. 

Valerie asked Carl if there was anything to add to the specification. Carl replied probably not. For example, the tracking identifier represents the user going into a cme activity. It is very specific to their platform.

2 Specification maintenance discussion

Valerie summarized that the specification was approved in August 2009. MedBiquitous has 5 years to reaffirm or revise the standard, 2014. Given the length of the Standards Committee voting process, it should be sent to the standards committee in 2013.

Annette commented that the timing syncs with OCC launches.

Carl commented that meeting 2 or 3 times a year is fine. He recommended putting out an email periodically 1) to encourage them to implement, 2) to share implementation information. Point people to the wiki.

Mike commented that having 2 meetings a year will not be sufficient to keep the focus on implementation or have members benefit from learning about others implementation. He recommended adding some other communication channels to the mix to promote implementation and keep everyone informed of what’s going on.

Carl suggested that questions could be posted to wiki. Emails could be generated offering assistance.

Valerie agreed to put a page on the wiki for implementers where each implementer could describe their implementation briefly. The result could be a community of practice for implementers. Carl recommended adding a page for questions.

Valerie added we may want to encourage people to subscribe to updates for the page.

The implementers page will be publicized on linked in and twitter, as well as the website and newsletter.

3 Education needs assessment

Valerie asked the group what kind of education about the standard they thought might be helpful.

Carl questioned how many folks know about existence of standard, understand its benefits, what is necessary (what kind of technology), and how to go about implementing.

Annette asked if the group had reached out to ACGME and others with a vehicle.

The group recommended contacting: AAFP, ACCME, pharmacy, nursing (accreditors), specialty organizations that support MoC, ABMS, larger member boards, and the American College of Surgeons.

James commented that they use the Activity Report for to relay resident information for SCORE. That includes any self – assessment tests. There is one feature to be added; the Board wants results. ABMS wants more periodic updates.

The group agreed awareness is the biggest hurdle.

Annette commented that once a standard is approved, there is flury of press release, then it sits there. Is there a blog? On some regular basis, information could continue to go out reminding people there are these standards and how they are used.

James commented that you don’t think about it until you need it. With this kind of spec, there is only so much you do internally. You have to have your partners on board.

Annette questioned whether we should have outreach to software companies. Valerie commented that the challenge is in overcoming proprietary mindset. Many software companies want to lock people into their solution rather than work with others in an interoperable fashion.

Carl commented that they way things evolved for them, they knew they needed to interchange with 3rd party systems. He was brought on board to architect info exchange, and there wasn’t anything out there. But he leans toward not reinventing the wheel. They’ve had philosophy, if there is a standard they can use, go with that.

4 Open discussion

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie will put a page on the wiki for implementers where each implementer could describe their implementation briefly as well as a page for questions. She will add instructions on how to ‘subscribe” to page updates.
  • The implementers page will be publicized on linked in and twitter, as well as the website and newsletter.
  • The group will continue to discuss how to reach out to AAFP, ACCME, pharmacy, nursing (accreditors), specialty organizations that support MoC, ABMS, larger member boards, and the American College of Surgeons.
  • No labels