Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

July 18, 2012

Time:

11 AM PDT/1 PM CDT/2 PM EDT

Attendees:  James Fiore and Toby Vandemark, co-chairs; Jyothi Holla, Barbara Huffman, Alex Minkofsky, Peter Samouelian,

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of 2/29 and 5/2

The minutes were approved.

2 Review revised Activity Report schema and specification

Valerie reviewed the changes to the specification. Extensibility was added to the following elements: ActivityReport, Module, and Activity.

Jyothi commented that the revised specifications have helped tremendously. They are receiving data from the AAP using the revised specs.

Barbara asked if any of the changes would require an update to the glossaries. the term Module is not clear. She asked if it was a part of an activity. Valerie replied it was. Barbara recommended clarifying within the documentation. She asked if it could be used to denote a prerequisite, for example Diabetes module 1 and Diabetes module 2. Valerie commented that if those modules were part of the same activity, it could be used that way. Valerie agreed to add language indicating module is required.

James asked Barbara to explain what might not fit within this model.

Barbara commented that the ABMS sees competencies as an activity. What would a module look like in that rubric?

James commented that he is running into the issue of linking activities to a hierarchical curriculum as opposed to defining in the activity report. This is similar to the items discussed at the in person meeting. He asked Barbara if the intention was to map to CPT codes. Barbara replied that she had not considered that.  But people are asking do you have evidence they did 50% of education in their specialty, or evidence of the 6 competency areas.

James commented that at the in person meeting they commented about the need to link activities to some structure. What part of surgery the module was done in? Credentialing organizations want to know not just 150 cme hrs, but that 40 of those are in breast surgery, 40 in transplantation, or some more detailed structure. There was a discussion around OIDs. that would allow you to link a URI to an external object structure.

Valerie commented there were other ways to link to an external framework further describing the topic of the education. James recommended discussing further on the next call. What structures would you map to?

Valerie asked if such structures have been defined in surgery. James replied that no one has asked for it yet. Eventually they will realize it will be nice to have it linked to the SCORE curriculum. They are looking to change the way they provide feedback on exams and use that for references. They want better understanding of the scope of practice. The procedures a surgeon may perform are varied.

3 Review revised schemas for Activity Report Web Services

Valerie explained that the web service datatype FailureReasonType was missing the 'Report already exists' value.  Previously that was a valid value for failures related to the createActivityReport function. Valerie made the correction at ABP’s request.

Jyothis commented that they are already using it, and it is working well. They are receiving data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Illinois chapter of the AAP. They use the web service to send in reports and provide MoC credit.

Illinois hasn’t moved to version 2 yet. There are not too many completions yet, but it is all set up.

4 Using Activity Report for outcomes assessment tracking

James asked if the Board of Pediatrics is using Activity Report for part 4 outcomes assessment.  Peter replied yes, they use the schema for part 4 activities.

James asked what kinds of elements are captured. What he thinks he would need, the schema covers well. He is trying to think of anything he might be missing. Jyothi commented that there is no difference between how they use it for part 2 and 4. Peter added that they track which activities are for part 2 and which are for part 4.

James commented that the board of surgery will start requiring more details as to how they review practice. One way is studying the outcomes of procedures. You don’t necessarily get CME credit. There is no accrediting body. He is still trying to see what information is available. Surgery may be unique. There are lots of variables and no one standard. He asked Peter to send a sample report privately.

5 Open discussion

Valerie commented that the module is there because there was a need for hierarchy. James commented that Interdependencies can get complicated. He doesn’t want to model structural interdependencies here. They pushed the complexity outside of the Activity Report framework. People want to reference a URI that pinpoints an activity within a structure.

Peter commented that would work. Loosely coupled structures are easier to work with. The external piece could model prerequisites, etc.

James commented that they briefly discussed OIDs with the Technical Steering Committee. In addition they presented MedBiquitous to the ABMS tech net group. It exposed MedBiquitous to a broader audience.

James added that CECity had opinions about how to link out. Discussions should involve them.

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie will clarify the modules definition.
  • Barbara will send an sample of what she would like to map to
  • Peter will send James sample of part 4 activity report.
  • Valerie will look at SCORE and how one might link an activity report to SCORE or other external frameworks
  • Valerie will contact CECity regarding links to external frameworks.
  • No labels