Child pages
  • 2018-04-27
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

April 27, 2018

Time:

12 PM EDT/11 AM CDT/10 AM MDT/9 AM PDT

Attending: Amy Opalek, Chair, Prasad Chodavarapu, Editor; Tom Creighton, James Fiore, Chantal Hall, Kirke Lawton, Vicki Lundmark, Purvi Maniar, Brenda Ruff, and Valerie Smothers

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes

Prasad asked if any specification or schema changes were pending from the last discussion. Purvi confirmed the addition of certificate notice; Valerie will verify that it was added (note: certificate notices are available in version 1.96 of the specification and schema, published in December).   The minutes were accepted as submitted.  

2 Review draft vocabulary for Education Status

Valerie explained that the proposed education status values are based on Kirke’s document and other sources.  She reiterated some definitions are needed and the highlighted ones are not in the current specifications still need definitions.  The two that were part of the MedBiquitous list that were not on the AAMC document were “Completed Preliminary Training” and “Completed Specialty Training.” Amy suggested making the hierarchy clearer.  The most recent additions are “Total and Permanent Disability” which relates to student loan forgiveness, and inactive.  Amy asked about “Honorary Degree Status” and clarifying No longer enrolled as being either graduated, withdrawn, or dismissed etc.  Kirke thought the wording was fine but there is confusion due to missing hierarchy list and higher-level statuses.  Chantal commented it would work for her program and suggested using a subset, Graduated = Completed Specialty Training Program.  Amy agreed.

Amy asked about enforcing the use of hierarchy format.  Kirke noted there is no validation but some codes are more general than others are.  He emphasized being clear with documentation.  Vicki supported the hierarchy format but questioned whether every category would fit.  Valerie suggested figuring out the frequency of Completed Preliminary Training and Completed Specialty Training use and if not take it out to avoid confusion.   Valerie will ask James about Completed Preliminary Training and Completed Preliminary Active Category. 

The discussion continued on Leave of Absence.  Kirke considers it inactive status; authorized and unauthorized Leave of absence.  One is active and the other is inactive.  Amy mentioned the term “leave” means authorized and AWOL means not authorized.  Valerie asked if someone is on maternity leave are they still considered enrolled in program.  Kirke said yes. Prasad noted the definition used here would work for that situation.  Kirke added the term enrolled is not synonymous with active.  Prasad asked about adding absence without leave to inactive status.  Valerie suggested using inactive if status is unknown.  Valerie will work with Kirke to combine the two drafts and report at the annual conference working group meeting. 

James joined the call and noted he does not use Completed Preliminary and Completed Specialty Training status.  The program administrators have a term to indicate surgeons completing training; they use “graduated” internally to qualify for exams.  James provided the distinction between preliminary and completed; someone who has completed their rotation in surgical care can sit for certifying exam despite not having completed their training.  If they pass the exam, they do not recognize publically until they pass their certification.  Valerie asked if ABMS would be tracking that. Brenda clarified they do not track that.  Vicki questioned how that would translate to nursing. Advanced Practice Nurses have a Masters degree but do not practice until they’ve passed an exam. Registered Nurses who specialize must meet eligibility requirements.  Brenda added each certification program is different and it needs to be interchangeable.  Valerie confirmed Graduated is consistent across specialties.  Amy suggested including a separate element for status.  

3 Review Program API use cases and School API documentation

Tom provided a brief overview of each of the use cases.  He noted the documentation is also on GitHub.  Prasad asked Tom if there was a way to include a domain as part of the ID defined in the URL mechanism.  Valerie clarified the focus is on schools and programs, not the student level.  Valerie will add the data model from Amy to the use case page.  Amy asked about containing the work or look for more use cases.  Valerie noted the goal is for Tom to get something done quickly.  Valerie suggested changing school to institution to make it more generic.  She asked about including domain as part of ID.  Prasad suggested including the ID type that corresponds to domain.  Valerie clarified that was two different use cases, 1) alternative for retrieving information and 2) alternative for information you’re getting back from client.  She mentioned Tom can document those separate use cases but we need to discuss further.  Valerie suggested scheduling another call with core people interested in further developing this API.    

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie will work with Kirke to combine the two drafts for education status value and report at the annual conference working group meeting.
  • Valerie will add the data model from Amy to the use case page.
  • Valerie and Jody will schedule another call to discuss the API.
  • No labels