July 19, 2007
12:30 PM EDT
Attending: Morgan Bantly, Valerie Smothers, David Ward, Peter Greene, Joy Leffler
1 Review minutes of last meeting
Morgan asked for comments and corrections. None were stated. The minutes were approved.
2 Update on Healthcare LOM status
Valerie told the group that the public review of Healthcare LOM was complete, and no comments were received. The next step for the Healthcare LOM is to go to ballot within the MedBiquitous Standards Committee. That said, in completing work within the Activity Report working group, Valerie became aware of changes to the AACN credit system that have implications for the recommended values for the activityCertification element. She asked David to describe the changes.
3 Discussion of AACN Credit Categories (see Synergy CERPS)
David explained AACN had been operating under a program that categorized CE in two ways - A (clinical) and O (other). Recently they implemented a new model for categorizing CE credits called Synergy Cerps - continuing education recognition program. The credits are not focused in one area, but spread out. It's based on the synergy model they use for education and services. They realized they needed to look at how they were categorizing CE credits.
Synergy has A, B and C categories. In Synergy, A is clinical judgment and inquiry. It doesn't always align with category A under the old model. There's no direct relationship with the previous category A and new category A. They can't map the old model to the new model. The Synergy CERPS model went into effect in January this year. Rather than change instantaneously, they have a three year transitional period (til Jan 2010). They are running both models of categorization concurrently now. A particular program may be categorized both ways. Both are applied at the same time. As of Jan 2010, they will retire the old model.
Peter asked if this was just in scope of critical care nurses. David answered yes. David explained that other providers are accredited to offer AACN credits. Morgan explained that the activityCertification element has a list of recommended values that includes the AACN Category A and O. There are two questions to consider. 1. Should we replace the current examples in the specification with the Synergy Cerp Categories, 2. What is the process for doing that? David commented we could include both categories.
Valerie commented that from a process perspective, the appropriate action would be to notify the Standards Committee and request a change to the specification. Morgan offered that we shouldn't include examples that are incorrect. After 2010, the old categories would be incorrect. Would it be acceptable to change the listing, replacing the old categories with the new ones? David commented if we don't have both it would be preferable to use Synergy Cerps. If it's problematic to change later, we should replace now.
4 Communication plan
When this is made official, how will we communicate that and make people aware? Joy asked who our targets are? Valerie offered that anyone that does a lot of e-learning in healthcare is a target. David added that we should find groups using SCORM. They are just beginning to leverage SCORM with their new LMS. Morgan added that other types of education, beyond SCORM, would be useful. Peter recommended including those developing repositories. Joy asked if we had thought of JCEHP or AMIA as a vehicle. WEMOVE is small organization but leads 52 national organizations. The membership can get the word out, too. Why it's important and how it will be used is important. It's also useful for describing and categorizing CE activities. Many people use it to create database fields. From that perspective, anyone in healthcare buying an LMS is a potential target.
Peter mentioned that in some cases members are taking on that communication task. In the Virtual Patient Working Group, numerous people are giving workshops, etc. Peter commented that we could help with that process, but Morgan should coordinate. Morgan added we could have some templates of text written for different communication mechanisms or groups. Those could be posted on the wiki. It would be good to develop those documents. Peter commented that someone to do that for nursing would be particularly valuable. Is there someplace in nursing where we could communicate? David was trying to think of a venue to access those who would apply it. He'll try to come up with ideas.
Morgan commented that when he sends a note out about the implementation issues, he can bring this up. Joy offered to contribute. She recommended keeping it concise and aiming at the right audience. Emphasize the benefit and how to apply it. A list of target groups, methods, and message itself will be posted to the wiki. We may want different versions for different groups. Joy offered to put together a communication matrix. David asked about LMS providers. Joy asked if there is a communication or resource that they use. List of members would be a good start. Encourage them to share with their partners. She also recommended developing a boiler plate for inclusion in their newsletters. They are having a lot of success with that approach. Valerie suggested the library community. Peter suggested having Shona or Sharon take the lead in communicating to that audience.
5 Implementation issues
Morgan asked if any issues have come up in using the specifications? Joy commented they are looking at using it in WeMove. She has to look at the documentation and report back. They are proceeding in a lot of area with regard to indexing. They just launched an activity that had AMA PRA Category 1, AAFP, and PHRMA credit. Valerie suggested sending a note to solicit feedback from those who are absent.
6 Open discussion
- David will send a note to the standards committee.
- Morgan will send an email to the group regarding implementation issues and a communication plan. Joy will contribute her ideas to assist Morgan.
- Joy will develop a communication matrix.
- The group will post template language and other resources to assist with a viral communication strategy.