Child pages
  • 2010-03-31
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

March 31, 2010

Time:

8 PDT/11 EDT/16 BST

Please note: the conferencing service will ask you to enter the pound sign. Press # for pound.
To mute, press *6.

Attending: Tim Willet, so-chair; Valerie Smothers, staff, Susan Albright, Mary Pat Aust, Simon Grant, Logan Holt.

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last meeting

Tim reviewed the focus of the last call. We discussed redundancy in the definition of relationships, which Valerie was to take to the Technical Steering Committee, and the nature of the relationships defined. Susan and Mary Pat asked that they be added as participants in the last call. Valerie agreed to make the change.

Logan introduced himself. He is with Therasim in North Carolina. They are reviewing their own implementation of competencies within a virtual patient system and are looking to come up with a model suitable to many situations.

2 Review ANSI announcement

Valerie explained that for the competency framework to become an ANSI approved standard, first the work must be announced to the ANSI community. The attached form provides the mechanism for making that announcement.

Tim recommended taking out "and existing frameworks" from the sentence: "It contains metadata about the framework as well as relationships (hierarchical and non-hierarchical) among competency objects and existing frameworks that comprise the competency framework." Simon argued that a more flexible approach would be to say "and potentially existing frameworks." The group agreed.

Tim questioned whether we should also submit an announcement for the competency object specification. Valerie explained that there was the potential for overlap with the existing IEEE RCD standard. Therefore it may be better not to push competency objects as an ANSI standard. There is precedence for this approach within the metrics working group, which standardized medical education metrics but not individual survey items, and additional specification that helps groups to compile survey data for medical education metrics.

Tim motioned to accept the ansi announcement with the addition of the word potentially. The group unanimously approved. Valerie added that she would ask for the executive committee's approval in order to submit to ANSI.

3 Discuss Tufts complex competency and use case*(see* Tim's suggestions*)*

There had been much e-mail discussion around Tufts complex competencies and use cases. Tim summarized that it raises questions about organizing and representing competency frameworks that are quite what we expected. For example, one area has to competency statements and five supporting competencies. There are four potential ways to represent the information using the current specification. Tim put his ideas together in a separate document.

Option 1 - take two competency statements and treat them as one competency object. Text from both statements appears in one description. It has 5 subcompetencies that are narrower than.

Option 2 - Each competency statement in its own description element. LOM does allow for multiple description elements. Each shows a single statement.

Option 3 - Competency statements are defined as separate competency objects. Both have relationships with the narrower subcompetencies. B.1.1 is narrower than both B.1 and B.2.

Option 4 - there is a competency object for husbandry and disease prevention with no description or statement, there are two competency objects underneath that, and five underneath those.

Simon asked what the difference was between 1 and 2. Susan replied that the two statements required two paragraphs. They've done that over and over. Option two represents that better.

Tim commented from a functional point of view there is no difference in option 1 and 2. How they are visualized may be different. You would not be able to map to each statement. Isarin commented that if they can visually separate the two paragraphs within one description element, that may be better approach.

Tim added that all 4 current options are supported in the current spec.

Simon commented that we have no way of preventing people from interpreting differently. Criteria for deciding if something is a separate competency should be in a best practice guide.

Valerie commented that option to really was not what was intended use by LOM. LOM allows multiple description elements so that descriptions can be provided in multiple languages.

Susan added that there were several instances where many topics are combined into one competency. For example, professionalism, ethics, and something else. They are recommending separating those out.

Tim commented that when they are mapping assessment against the competency framework, they would have to map assessments to the sub competencies if the larger competencies were combined.

Susan added that the description could be presented in HTML rather than plain text. He can always be presented as distinct paragraphs, or in order to list. Valerie agreed to ask the technical steering committee how we would represent two paragraphs in one description.

Susan questioned Tim's use of categories in his document. Tim explained he took the terms from the paper statement. Categories are used to facilitate labeling of competency objects. For example, CANMeds has roles, key competencies, and enabling competencies. Those categories can be whatever the organization wants them to be.

Susan commented that they would probably do something like option for for electronic representation. Valerie recommended that whatever approach you use it be consistent. Simon and added it should be clear and unambiguous.

4 Review Technical Steering Committee discussion of relationship redundancy and recommendations

Valerie provided an overview of the discussion with the technical steering committee. Because we have defined all the relationships of one competency object together, redundancy was necessary. Joel suggested using a different approach where relationships were defined between two objects only. That would make redundancy unnecessary, provided we make it clear that if A is narrower than B, B must be broader than A. it would make it a little bit harder to find all of the relationships of a single competency, but it X. query could easily be used to address that.

Valerie had modified the specification and accordance with these recommendations. For those frameworks that do not have hierarchical relationships (i.e. just a list), she added that a references section. Simon commented that it would be possible to simplify the structure even further and offered to call Valerie after the working group call.

(Note: they later sent out a proposal for sympathy and in the following e-mail: http://lists.ctsnet.org/read/messages?id=19072)

5 Review edits to competency object specification

6 Review edits to competency framework specification

Valerie offered to walk through the specification in more detail in the next call and have some examples from the group to review.

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie will ask the technical steering committee how we would represent two paragraphs in one LOM description.
  • For the next call, Valerie will review both specifications and provide examples.
  • Simon will propose some simplifications.
  • No labels