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

Meeting Information

Date:

March 7, 2013

Time:

7 PST/10 EST/15 GMT/16 CET

Attending: JB McGee, co-chair; Matt Cownie, Andrzej Kononowicz, Olivier Petinaux, Valerie Smothers, Luke Woodham.

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last call

JB asked olivier to introduce himself. Olivier is manager of distance de and e-learning at the American College of Surgeons. He has a background in computer science and has been working in e-learning for 12 years. He is Involved in many e-learning programs at the ACS and chairs the IT component group. They are able to have conversations across societies about technology needs. He also works on the simulation committee of the ACS Accredited Education Iinstitutes.  they are undertaking a number of projects related to simulation and developing a terminology. He has attended the MedBiquitous meeting for 5 years now and looks forward to participating.

2 Review implementation guideline progress

a Inclusion of e-ViP documentation

Valerie commented that Nabil had said the following in a recent email

“What is of value from eVIP is 3 case studies describing in quite a detailed manner the implementation of the spec (Casus, campus and web-sp).

So I have 3 pdf documents. Where do I place them in the implementation guideline doc?”

Luke commented that he knows the documents and it is fairly lengthy. Nabil is probably thinking of reducing to the pertinent information. But he could be wrong.

JB asked are they something someone picking up the spec could rely on for implementation? Or would it be more of an addendum?

Luke commented it wouldn’t be a major part; aspects can be drawn out. Even for frequently asked questions. The case studies themselves would be an addendum.

Andrzej commented that what Nabil mentioned, is deliverable 2.3.b on evip under deliverables. in B2.3, there are two links. The second link leads to the best practice guidelines regarding implementation. The second, 2.2. is a more technical description of how this was implemented.

JB commented that they may be fairly technical and fine to have as attachments, or we could refer to them from within the guide. Valerie agreed to have to look at documents. Andrzej offered to send her links. Luke  agreed. This are documents he was thinking of. 2.3 b may have good info,that may be able to come into implementers guide. The other would be addendum. He  offered to post a link from the medbiq wiki.

b Development of FAQ

Valerie commented that she had not received any suggestions. JB commented not many people asking questions now. He doesn’t know what is happening in Europe. Are others getting questions?

Olivier offered to solicit the IT component group of CMSS to see who is working on VPS, and if they are aware of standards. We can educate them; they may be using and  may have questions. In addition, the college is redesigning scenarios from flash to HTML5. He can find where they are  to see if now is good time to implement standard. Will take a look at that.

JB commented it may be cheaper to ignore the spec. The value of having cases transferrable is not on the radar. Is it even conceivable with a company like that?

Olivier commented it may play a larger role in the curriculum for residency education. Right now, there is no common platform. It would be nice to tie data from this with other data from learner in the curriculum. But it could be too early.

JB commented this would have to be a business decision by ACS. Olivier agreed it goes back to the value these standards bring. He requested talking points he can use to highlight the value moving forward.

Valerie commented there would be a stronger value proposition for the core curriculum for residency education.

The group recommended reaching out to the following people for implementation questions or other questions about the standard:

  • David Topps
  • Methanet??
  • Czech
  • Those working on interactive algorithms
  • Possibly Southampton
  • Chris Toth (JB will ask)

Luke agreed to ask his contacts.

Matt commented that the biggest thing is multiple choice questions. People have tried to use the standard for that; it doesn’t work very well.  The way they think about it doesn’t seem the same. If people try using the functionality in IMS ,it doesn’t work the way they think it should. It’s when they try to work with others, it doesn’t map. They have tried to use branching for quizzes instead.

JB commented they developed their own method internally, use branching to export. It doesn’t take all the functionality with it.

Matt added it’s not something to get hung up about. Valerie agreed to add a note about multiple choice questions to the FAQ.

c Wiki page and mailing list

Olivier commented he could not access the page. Valerie will send him a working link.

JB asked people to add their thoughts to the wiki page. JB, Olivier, and Andrzej asked to be added to the implementers mailing list.

3 Review promotion progress

a Video overview (technical)

JB commented the overview looks nice. He asked Valerie to go ahead promoting it on the website, twitter, newsletter etc.

he asked if we could add something about joining the working group. Valerie commented it would be difficult to change. She can recommend joining if anyone contacts her.

Olivier asked what the intended shelf life of the product was.Valerie replied  until v 2.0 comes out. Olivier asked if we should review it in a year to see if it is still up to date. Or is it worth redoing sooner? We can put suggestions for revision in a particular file. That will help accelerate updates.

JB agreed that was a good idea. We can add things to web page that refer to this video.

b Overview (educator)

JB offered to help with the script and asked the group for input.

c Meetings

NGEA – Susan was unable to submit an abstract but she will attend.

GIR - no response

MedInfo  - No reply

Andrzej –commented that he submitted a paper; they will publish results in 5 days. They are probably busy with review.

JB commented they have things worked out far in advance. When they hear past a deadline, they tend to ignore. We should get in touch right after the meeting concludes. They tend to be open to new ideas and less barraged by other concerns. Followup with Andrzej and Nabil after the meeting to see what they would suggest for the following conference.

Andrzej commented it is once every 3 years. On the Off years, the Medical Informatics Europe meeting takes place.  2014 is in Instanbul.

JB added the Asia-Pacific Meeting on Simulation in Healthcare (APMSH), October 24-27, 2013.  See http://ssih.org/apmsh  the deadline for abstracts is June 1. He will attend. If anyone else is attending, please set up time to talk with JB about the abstract.

WGEA – no reply yet

Valerie will contact them and find out if the abstract was accepted.

AMEE

JB  submitted to do a workshop on techniques for developing virtual patients.  He can certainly say something about MedBiq.

Luke is submitting something and would talk about MedBiq as well.

Valerie commented that it will carry  more weight to see standards in action

IAMSE

JB will mention in MedBiquitous in his VP talk.

4 Open discussion

Valerie will get in touch with JB and Nabil to discuss agenda for the in person meeting

JB asked if anyone was familiar with iHuman vp. It’s a relatively new system. they are getting some attention, putting a consortium together. He talked with them briefly. Initially there was resistance. More recently they wanted to talk again. Can anyone help with that. The challenge is that groups spend time and $ developing a system; they don’t have money left to make it compatible with the spec. There is  not enough appreciation of its value. They won best in show for vp/virtual world at the SSIH conference. It’s a linear design. They would be a good group to pull in. A lot of content is premade. It is simpler than other systems.

Susan had inquired within Tufts. Valerie agreed to follow up with Susan.

Decisions

Action Items

  • Andrzej will send Valerie links to the pertinent evip deliverables and Valerie will evaluate how to integrate them into the implementation guidelines. (done)
  • Olivier will solicit the IT component group of CMSS to see who is working on VPS, and if they are aware of standards
  • Valerie will create talking points highlighting the value of the standard. (done)
  • Valerie agreed to add a note about multiple choice questions to the FAQ. (done)
  • Valerie will send Olivier a working link to the MVP 2.0 suggestions page. (done)
  • Valerie will add JB, Olivier, and Andrzej  the implementers mailing list.(done)
  • Valerie will promote the video overview on the website, twitter, newsletter etc. (half done)
  • Valerie will set up a wiki page for updates to the video overview. (done)
  • Andrzej and Nabil will provide suggestions as to how we might have a presence at the next Medinfo meeting after this year’s meeting.
  • Valerie will contact WGEA and find out if the abstract was accepted. (done)
  • Valerie will get in touch with JB and Nabil to discuss agenda for the in person meeting (done)
  • Valerie will follow up with Susan on ihuman.
  • JB will help with the script for the educator overview; the group will provide input as well.
  • No labels