Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

December 5, 2007

Time:

11:00 AM EST

Attending: Rosalyn Scott, Co-Chair; Tim Willett, CoChair; Ben Azan, Vladmir Goodkovsky, Peter Greene, David Price, Valerie Smothers

Agenda Items

Peter mentioned several MedBiquitous members are participating in a meeting on physician competency this week. NBME, FSMB and others are attending. This is the 5th workshop on accountability for physician competence. One thread of the meeting will be technology infrastructure, and the work of this working group will be important. Tim asked if we could distribute the survey to people participating at that meeting. Peter said we could ask about it.

1. Announcement
Rosalyn announced that we've invited Tim to co-chair the working group. In addition, she has been appointed to MedBiquitous Board of Directors.

2. Approve minutes of last meeting
The minutes were approved.

3. Discuss survey draft
Rosalyn expressed that the survey developed for competencies needs to go out beyond the working group to a broader set of stakeholders.

David Price agreed with Rosalyn that the survey should go out to a larger set. He then went through some of his comments, which were submitted as an attachment (see comments). Rosalyn agreed that separating certification from continuing professional development in item 1 would be wise. Tim added that postgraduate should be added as separate item, too. Peter asked if we need a bullet of Don't plan to use the standards. Rosalyn questioned whether nursing and allied health education should be separate, too. Peter commented that we need a fundamental question about the attitude towards standards, whether it is a good idea to develop them at all. Valerie commented that such a standard had been developed as a part of the research grant with Oregon Health and Science University. She offered to share the survey and results with the group.

The group progressed with survey comments. Tim recommended a hyperlink to use cases in question 2. Vladmir asked if it was necessary to rank the alternatives presented. Valerie clarifies that the question will be a scale and will not ask respondents to order the alternatives, just indicate which are important. Tim expressed concern that many will not understand the term use case and recommended using different terminology. Peter expressed the same concern about ontology. Tim recommended changing the ninth point to index a competency framework against a controlled vocabulary, terminology, or ontology.

Rosalyn questioned whether we should address performance.
Vladmir recommended providing a definition of ontology in parentheses. He added that there is currently no relation of competency to assessment or performance. The group commented that gap analysis includes performance. Vladmir recommended drawing them out in current activities. Tim commented that you could change record activities to record activities/performance. In the Search a system item, he recommended adding (for example learning activities or assessments) after curricular components

Valerie commented that another approach would be to create a glossary for the survey and define curricular components.

The group questioned if yes or no was adequate for question 4. They recommended adding not interested, no but planning to, starting to, yes, fully incorporated. David added that if not, why not, and what barriers. He asked if that was really information that we would use. He recommended asking whether respondents use competencies, plan to use them, and attitudes towards having a spec.

Peter recommended moving item 4 to item 1.. Attitudes towards developing a standard should be asked at the end. Tim recommended following with a question, asking the learner to indicate barriers.

The group moved to #5, Please indicate if you use a technology platform to accomplish the following, or if you plan to do so. Tim commented that this may give us a sense of how people will use competency. The group agreed with David's comment to separate develop and deliver. They also recommended including assessment in the associate content bullet point. They also recommended changing ontologies to controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, ontologies.

The group moved to #6, the question surrounding requirements, and asked what information needs to be captured. Vladmir commented that the competency statement bypasses a formal definition of competency. Peter responded that the language reflects current practice. Tim recommended adding for example to the parentheses.

The group then discussed "Performance criteria indicating competence." Vladmir proposed adding tasks or activities performed based on competency to be able to measure through performance. Valerie commented that educators typically include levels of achievement and conditions of performance for competency based learning. Tim recommended taking out performance and including criteria and conditions. David commented that we should separate performance criteria and outcome criteria. Performance conditions or context should be a separate point.

Vlad commented that for typing, role should be a part of professional activity. Valerie commented that the item was just to capture whether any typing was required. Tim commented there would be a need for canmeds. Peter agreed.

The group added that the point on multiple languages should be better explained and recommended indicate competencies in multiple languages within a single framework.
The group recommended getting away from the word requirements and refocusing on what should be included in framework. Add describe to the first bullet point and ensure that each starts with a verb. Make all lists consistent.

Vladmir recommended extending Non-hierarchical relationships with enabling or prerequisite relationships.

4. Discuss potential survey recipients and strategies for increased participation and involvement

Tim has a list of people involved in curriculum mapping. He could send the survey to them. The group also recommended JISC in Europe, DR-Ed, and AAMC. Valerie suggested coming up with a more targeted list.

5. Open discussion

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie will share OHSU survey and results with the group.
  • Valerie will edit survey based on comments
  • The group will develop a targeted list of survey recipients.
  • No labels