October 5, 2017
11 EDT/10 CDT
Attending: Amy Opalek, Chair; Prasad Chodavarapu, Editor; Annette Gippe, Shantal Hall, Kirke Lawton, Vicki Lundmark, Purvi Maniar, Alex Mankofsky, Brenda Ruff, Bill Sivrais, Valerie Smothers, and John Whiton.
Valerie mentioned the wiki hosting provider had an unexpected power outage affecting all the websites for about three hours. Everything should be up and working normally now. She urged everyone to let her know if they have any problems accessing the website and she would follow-up with the company.
1 Review minutes
The minutes were accepted as submitted.
Valerie presented the changes to the specification document beginning on page 46. The visual for Certificateinfo was deleted and replaced with Recognition. On page 49 a description for Recognition was added with more detailed information beginning on page 55. Page 56 shows the various attributes of Recognition, including an extensible field for adding any other. The definitions are based on mirror elements at certificate level.
Purvi provided a brief overview of the Recognition element. The ABMS has a few boards ABIM, ABFM, doing Recognition related to focused practice. Valerie provided an example of ABFM’s general certificate recognition of focused practice in hospital medicine. She asked Annette if AOA had something similar. Annette will find out. Annette asked if they needed to use all the fields. Valerie noted the dotted lines on page 56 denote it is optional. The optional structure is there for the boards to represent recognition if applicable. They tried to make the definitions consistent with existing definitions. She asked the group to let her know if they see anything when reviewing the specification.
Valerie noted there was concern about calling it recognition, because there is also an element RecognitionOrganization intended to represent ABMS, which recognizes twenty-four certifying boards. Vicky added in Nursing there is an accrediting body to recognize the context of certification, so recognizing is important. Concern was expressed about the use of recognition for both of those. Amy agreed recognition was OK for now; however, we may need to clarify other terms for Recognition (Quality Assurance) if it becomes an issue.
Valerie clarified RecognitionOrganization defines the organization; Recognizing certifying board or exam defines organization that is accrediting. Amy uses the term “quality assurance organization”. She asked the group if anybody was using those elements now. Purvi mentioned ABMS uses Recognition organization to pass member boards name. Valerie commented ABMS might not be using it as initially intended. She will send a note to the working group to see who is using Recognition organization. Valerie expressed concern that changing existing elements will affect backwards compatibility.
Valerie continued with the last change on page 65, LicensureEntity data type was changed and also Justification was moved. It is no longer showing up under LicensureEntity.
3 Adding new enumeration value “Converted” to CertificateIssuanceStatus element - see June request
Amy described the new value called Converted. Currently there is a restricted list of values. ABMS needed a way to represent converted status certificates. Purvi mentioned ABMS needs status of converted to show older certificates that are converted. The discussion continued whether the list should be restricted to specific values or open. Valerie used a Use Case example of a physician with lifetime certificate going through Maintenance of certification and you want to show they have moved from lifetime to MOC. Brenda noted with “Converted, the original certificate doesn’t have to be lifetime; it may not be issued anymore. For them to participate in MOC, the original certificate is being converted into a different certificate. Amy asked if that was for specialty that has changed name and Brenda commented it only relates to those having decided to participate in MOC. Prasad asked what would happen if the diplomate stops maintaining the certificate. Was it time limited? Brenda noted it depended on the board, it could be time limited or continuous.
Prasad asked if “inactive” could be used for converted certificates. Purvi noted it was a display issue. She liked Amy’s idea of opening it up to a non-null string. Brenda added the new certificate will have its own requirements of maintaining different from the original. Amy was concerned agencies may use terms differently. Brenda emphasized the main thing it is a totally new certificate they are being converted into. Prasad asked what the certificate status would be and Purvi noted they are not displaying that status.
Valerie noted that there are three status elements: CertificateStatus, CertificateIssuanceStatus, and CertificationStatus. Purvi suggested changing CertificateStatus and CertificateIssuanceStatus only. Amy thought certification status needed clarifying. Valerie mentioned the values for certificate status are Inactive, Lapsed, Expired, Revoked, Suspended, Surrendered, Certified, Certified but Clinically Inactive, and Not Certified. Purvi noted that to be consistent it would be good to have the new value both at CertificateStatus and also in CertificateIssuanceStatus.
Valerie expressed concern that the new term would be confusing in the credentialing world. Amy was concerned it implies a link to something else but that link is not described or enforced. Valerie shared another approach having two elements that includes identifiers, could keep status as inactive, would be clearer in terms of what something gets converted to.
Purvi noted that she is going by what boards are requesting. Valerie suggested inviting one of the requesting boards to discuss on the next call. Purvi commented the boards are not using XML so this would be all new to them. Amy suggested revisiting this conversation offline to determine next steps.
4 Change EducationStatus from enumerated list to recommended list/vocabularies - see June request
Kirke discussed the proposal to remove list and make open text. He found each time they talked to somebody they had a different schema. Prasad asked if sub-status would clarify. Kirke commented more usage in free format, down the line we can constrain.
Valerie emphasized standards are created to avoid schematic overload and lack of clarity. She suggested coming up with a list of recommended values. Amy asked Kirke to develop a list of statuses he is using now and a brief description and email it to the group. She will research other generic statuses that have other definitions. Prasad commented two to three levels of status almost always works. He suggested keeping other and explain what it means. Kirke will email description of statuses he uses. A meeting will be set up to discuss converted status and follow-up on education status. Prasad did not support free text field, but can use sub status. Valerie supported vocabulary that work across all entities. Purvi, Amy, Prasad, Valerie and Kirke will meet offline to discuss further.
5 Program API next steps
- Valerie will send a note to the working group to see who is using Recognition organization.
- A subgroup will meet offline to further discuss representation of Converted certificates and differing Educational statuses.
- Kirke will provide a list of statuses he is using now and a brief description of each.