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

Meeting Information

Date:

December 3, 2014

Time:

9 MST/11 EST/16 GMT/17 CET/18 EET

Attending: Erick Emde, Chair; Dawn Carroll, Jyothi Holla, John Nash, Dimitris Spachos and Valerie Smothers.

Agenda Items

1 Review Minutes

The minutes were accepted as submitted.  Valerie provided an update on the action item regarding consent. She made changes to the schema and Daniella will have updates for the January meeting.

John asked about the Gabrielle’s consent comments that Valerie mentioned in the minutes.  Valerie clarified she sent an email about Gabrielle’s endorsement of adding information on consent to the data model. 

2 Requirements related to PI CME and Team vs individual participation

Jyothi provided background.  The ABFM, ABIM and ABP are collaborating on a product called MOCAM, the Maintenance of Certification Activity Manager.  They are using Healthcare LOM as the schema to define activities.  While doing mapping there were a few things they ran into.  They want to include part four performance improvement modules.  The Credit type element allows many values.  Performance improvement activities have PI CME credit, and they would like to add PI CME as a valid value for the credit type. 

Valerie asked Jyothi if there was an entity that is overseeing the PI CME credit system and if that was used by multiple boards.  Joythia answered that she would have to get back to Valerie on oversight, she believes it’s from ABMS.  John asked if this was an independent facet. They are adding Part 2 MOC activities into MedEdPortal; he is very familiar with the collaboration and believes Mayo clinic is involved.  Jyothi commented it’s about sharing information about MOC activities between different boards so that their diplomats can use those activities.  John asked if it was a different classification for Part four or a subcategory of CME.  He suggested asking the portfolio project group for input and seeing if other boards are doing it the same or differently.  Valerie mentioned Andy Rabin asked ABMS to see if they could participate in this call to talk about this proposal.  She added the goal was to make sure what is developed will work for multiple boards.  Valerie will contact the portfolio and ABMS folks to provide further details and input.    

 With regard to Team vs. individual participation, Jyothi continued and mentioned the Performance Improvement module may be more of a team activity whereas assessment is more of an individual participation.  They wanted to map that feature attribute to LOM.  John asked how they give credit for a team.  Jyothi mentioned the team coordinator signs approval, and the individual is given credit based on the signoff. Sometimes there is CME credit, othertimes it is just MOC credit.  Erick answered XAPI does deal with group activities.

Valerie commented a new data point may be needed.  She referenced page 33 of the specification 1.34. Participation modality defines the learners mode of participation dictated by the activity medium.  Valid values are conference/workshop, technology based, on the job and print. 

Dawn mentioned they only have one team-based training that has to do with gaming.  John asked if this type of offering is used elsewhere.  Erick commented experience API deals with group activities but he was not sure how much that applies to this.  John agreed to talk to Dr. Dave Davis and Dr. Nancy Davis.  Valerie will ask the portfolio
group about team verses individual and whether that comes up.  Patients are asked to rate the team for an Emergency Room visit, so it could apply in other context. 

Valerie agreed to touch base with ABMS and portfolio developers and ask for their input about categorizing CME and report back on the findings to decide next steps.    

3 Educational context vocabulary

Valerie proposed adding graduate education and administration to the Healthcare LOM Educational Context vocabulary.  There is an element that specifies professions in the current recommended vocabulary; there is another that represents whether the audience category is general, patient, caregiver, professional, student, or trainee.  Valerie added that health administrator is a profession; the corresponding US Department of Labor profession would be medical health service managers. Valerie asked John if that sounded correct. John commented the community-based hospital practice would fit into that as a sub-category, but other types of administration would not.  Valerie asked Dawn if the VA uses the Department of Labor professions and she answered they use a sub-set of that.  Valerie suggested they may want to eliminate the appendix on health professions and encourage folks to use existing vocabularies.  Valerie will circulate the document on the proposed revisions to educational context.  This will be discussed on the next call, as well as the profession list and whether there is value in it.   

4 Continued discussion of FOAF

This topic was tabled until Daniela is able to join the discussion. 

Valerie announced the abstract submissions are due Jan 5th, and she encouraged everyone to think about submitting something. 

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie will contact the portfolio and ABMS folks to provide further details and input on the characterization of PI CME as a credit type.
  • John will talk to Dr. Dave Davis and Dr. Nancy Davis about whether team learning vs individual learning should be tracked in an activity description. 
  • Valerie will ask the portfolio group about team verses individual and whether that comes up in their activities. 
  • Valerie will circulate proposed revisions to educational context.

 

  • No labels