Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information


October 17, 2012



Attending: James Fiore, American Board of Surgery, co-chair; Rod Campbell, University of Pennsylvania; Jyothi Holla, American Board of Pediatrics; Barbra Huffman, American Medical Association; Ed Kennedy, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education; Alex Minkofsky, American Board of Surgery; Tarang Shah, American Osteopathic Association; Linda Walski, Missy Woztek, CECity; Carl Singer, CECity.

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last call

The minutes were accepted.

James commented that Peter had agreed to send a sample to him. He did not receive anything. He asked Jyothi to send a sample, and she agreed.

2 Discuss linking to external frameworks

James commented that we are discussing whether extensions are needed to link to any standardized third party hierarchy or structure. Andy had some great ideas at meeting in May, talking about OIDs. That was why he had asked him to comment. Andy asked Missy to present on his behalf.

Missy introduced herself; she is the director of application development at CECity. She helps to define the platforms and works to implement them with clients. One thing Andy asked her to talk about was their work with a certifying board that does MOC and how they leverage the activity report. They need to ensure the diplomate receives appropriate points. The diplomate goes through an activity. Once they do a certain piece, they meet requirement for fulfilling MOC part 4. The content provider determines how many points they receive for the activity and then sends that data to the board system. They send data about what they completed and the number of points towards that requirements. The learner can receive CME credit as well. They send notification to the system of record for that competency, including information about requirements completed, the amount appropriate, and points awarded for completion.

Valerie asked Missy what XML elements they use. Missy commented there is a URL they can call back to for the complete activity report.

James asked about external frameworks. He also asked if there were other boards working with them.

Missy commented that they are supporting the AOA OCC program, and there are specific requirements for each activity by board and subspecialty. When a participant takes an activity, that activity relates to a board and subspecialty. Other boards outside of ABMS, including pediatric dentists, and optometry, use metadata to determine what requirement is being met.

James commented that if the external framework is board requirements, there should be a high level breakdown of what needs to be covered.

Missy commented that some can be very straightforward. Either part 4 or 2. Others have sub parts.

James asked Missy if they are able to provide samples to the group on how CECity is using the activity report and what extensions they have made to support their uses. Missy replied yes.

James commented that they are interested in linking to external structures. We had talked about linking in a URI. He referred the group to the attachment Valerie created. He commented that he likes the structure for number 1. You could put the URI in there somewhere. Does that relate to how CECity is using Activity report for MOC?

Missy said yes. They could use Credit focus, and add further descriptors to that. There are multiple credit focuses.

James asked Missy if she had any discussions with Andy on linking to oids. Missy replied only briefly. What Valerie showed was very descriptive, but not as precise as OIDS. In terms of operationally implementing, we would not have those available.

James commented that what Andy described in May, he sees as a need. People he would link to are not far enough along.

Missy commented it was a brief conversation. She does not want to put words in his mouth. Some clients are redeveloping their systems. It maybe existing systems wouldn’t support oids. As they refine, they could start to implement this and have it be more systematic. With certification requirements, people are updating their system as well. There might be two different approaches: One descriptive, one URI based. That could be available as people update their systems.

James commented that Andy and Carl were most interested in doing this quickly. He can see the need, but doesn’t know what we want to change. Are there specific needs beyond URI to Credit Focus?  Would that cover what we need?

Missy agreed to follow up with Andy. They receive data from multiple systems. There is a need there, what the requirement is it tied to. That could be served with credit focus.

James asked Ed how the ACCME using activity report.

Ed replied that they currently are not using it. They are doing long term planning for some systems that may involve inclusion of related data. So he is monitoring the working group to understand where the standard is and how it’s being used.

James asked Ed if the ACCME keeps a repository of credits issued. Ed replied no. James asked if there is a plan to do so in the future. Ed commented that they have not heard anyone talking about the ACCME storing individual credit information. Their interest is more around learner level data, not individual credit. But it’s speculative. They have not well defined a future state for their systems.

James summarized that Ed’s interest is more for research purposes than operational purposes. They have no specific plans yet. Ed stated that was correct.

James explained that he was asking for selfish reasons. The American board of surgery requires CME credits for certification. He is curious about long term plans because they want primary source verified data to use for certification purposes.

Jyothi commented that they use the Activity report for completions from external partners. How would you connect activities to a competency object? There are two options Valerie has presented. Is there a way to say this module in this activity report is focused on this competency object?

James commented that he is interested in linking to a competency object in competency framework standard. Valerie agreed to create an example that uses URIs to point to a Competency framework and competency object. She will follow up with Jyothi via email and copy James.

James summarized that Missy will send us a sample of how they are using Activity Report at CE City, how it relates to board use to cover point systems, and what she interpreted the external framework to be. She will follow up with Andy and Carl to see if a uri addition to credit focus is sufficient to meet their needs.  Valerie will follow up with Jyothi on classification for the competency object. Jyothi will send James a sample of how peds is using activity report.

3 Review revisions to spec

Valerie clarified the definition of module on pages 17 and 19.


4 Open discussion

The next call is scheduled for February. James asked if we should have something sooner? It can be the full working group or a smaller group.

Carl commented that Missy had to jump off.  He likes the idea of linking. Andy is traveling. He can follow up next week.  He commented that Oids are one way to go. But oids apply a repository of some sort. Implementing would depend on everyone’s ability to maintain a repository.

James asked Carl about putting a URI in credit focus to satisfy the short term need. Is that worth adding?

Carl replied it depends on the intent. If you want to state this individual has met these competencies, or demonstrated, that needs to be in activity report as uri. Carl asked about the latest version of the spec. Valerie agreed to post it.

James asked and missy if their need is more short term than Feb 20. We can wait. He is willing to have full working group call or a focused discussion with ce city in advance. He asked Carl and Missy to see if we can have a short follow up near term or a full working group meeting in February. He asked Carl to get back to him in a week.

James asked Valerie to include the organization in the attendee list. Valerie also noted that the documentation list needs to be updated.



Action Items

  • Jyothi will send an example of part 4 MOC completion record to James.
  • Missy will send a sample of how they are using activity report at CECity with point systems for maintenance of certification. She will follow up with Andy and Carl to see if a uri addition to credit focus for requirements is sufficient to meet their needs.
  • Valerie will create an example that uses URIs to point to a Competency framework and competency object. She will follow up with Jyothi via email and copy James.
  • Valerie will post the latest version of the spec to the website.
  • Carl will talk to Missy and see if we should follow up with a subgroup meeting near term to address the questions raised.
  • Valerie will include the organization of attendees in the attendee list.
  • Valerie will update the documentation list.


  • No labels