2008-11-7

Meeting Information

Agenda Items

1. Review minutes*of last meeting*

Sean commented that the minutes were helpful. Francis noted a few typos. He will make the change. The group approved the minutes with the described changes.

2. Update on interaction w/ACCME and review of comments

Valerie reviewed that in July she and Peter had met with Dr. Koppelow, Kate Regnier, Ed Kennedy, and other ACCME staff members. The ACCME indicated an interest in leveraging MedBiquitous standards for data collection related to accreditation. They provided their data requirements to MedBiquitous, and as a result, this working group had incorporated many of those requirements into the metric specification. They are described under activity description. Valerie has provided the specification to the ACCME for their review and is awaiting feedback. She would like to make sure that the specification meets their needs.

Francis emphasized that we don't want to misalign with the ACCME. He added that if we don't hear from them in the near future, they would have the opportunity to make comments during the public review period. Linda added that Valerie has accommodated each element of their requirements. Any changes would likely be minor. She added that a change in direction is always possible, but at some point the working group must move forward. Francis agreed. Linda recommended scheduling a special call if we do receive feedback. Sean commented that we could ask them if they see any red flags or urgent issues. Valerie agreed to contact the ACCME after the call.

3. Review standards development process

Valerie reviewed the standards development flowchart posted to the wiki. The group asked if it would be possible to shorten the cycle. Valerie commented that that was not likely. The only part of the process that can be shortened is the ballot., and that is pending 100% submission of ballots by the standards committee ahead of the six-week deadline, which is not typical.

4. Review [*specification*|Specifications and Schemas^Medical Education Metrics Specifications_094.doc]* and* suggestions for changes*(Nov 14 deadline for comments)*

Valerie commented that while editing and reviewing the specification, she came across three items for discussion. The first was the free text data element. She asked the working group whether the categorization of free text should be mandatory.

Sean commented the categorization would make the data more valuable for data mining. Linda commented that she wouldn't want anyone to give up on the specification because categorization is too difficult. Sean recommended providing some criteria and examples. The group determined that if categorization was not available, 'none' or 'other' could be entered into the category field. That would allow for content analysis at a later time.

The second suggestion related to the classification element within assessment score data. Valerie commented that multiple classification element should be possible to allow for linkages to multiple competencies or learning objectives. She changed the schema to match the specification. The group agreed that this was correct.

The final suggestion related to credits awarded.  Valerie commented that the RSNA had requested a credit focus elements within the activity report to describe the area of practice for the CME. For example, breast mammography. Francis added that they use this feature to figure out where members are getting their credit hours and in what specialty areas. Linda commented that this was an important feature for competence. Instead of just having a credit, the credit needs to map to the competence the physician is trying to maintain. Sean commented that this alliance with the Canadian use of CE as well, were credits have to be related to a gap the physician has. The group agreed to go ahead and make the change.

Linda asked that we send out a reminder of the specification comment. And link to the most recent example. Valerie agreed to send the reminder.

5. Implementation updates

Francis asked about CECity. Have we heard anything? Valerie commented that the potential use they were examining was the smoking cessation program. It's possible that providers participating in the program would want to download data to their own databases. The specification would be useful for that purpose. Sean offered to follow-up with CE city. Linda added that it would be worth trying to get Andy to respond to the request for comments since he is a long-standing and involved member of the working group. Valerie agreed to send him an e-mail.

6. Open discussion

December 12 is next meeting. Francis and Linda recommended discussing the revised specification via e-mail in the interim.

Decisions

The categorization of free text will remain mandatory.

Action Items

• Valerie will contact the ACCME to see if there are any red flags.
• Valerie will change the data type for credits awarded to reflect the inclusion of credit focus.
• Valerie will send the working group a reminder regarding specification comments and a link to the specification.