Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

March 26, 2015

Time:

9 MDT/10 CDT/11 EDT/15 GMT/16 CET

Attending: Scott Beck, Tom Creighton, Erick Emde, Lucas Huang, Ellen Meiselman, Valerie Smothers, David Topps, and Craig Wiggins

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes

The minutes were accepted as submitted.

2 Updates on related projects

David commented that he is still waiting to hear on the status of his project around open educational resources.  He asked the group for advice regarding the design of an LRS database and whether SQL or NoSQL was preferred. Ellen agreed to talk off-line with David.  David added that he has drafted a journal article and requested interested parties contact him.  Ellen and Valerie were interested and will touch base with David. 

Valerie added Rosalyn received approval from the Deputy Chief Learning officer for her project.  David asked what her timeline is.  Valerie replied that the anticipated date for completion of the cookbook document was September 23.  The project focuses on code simulation. The project team will identify ACLS competencies and performance frameworks for those competencies. The cookbook will provide recommendations for tagging simulation activities.

Ellen mentioned University of Michigan installed Rusticci’s SCORM engine and LRS alongside SABA to provide better tracking. One project would be the checklist app for observation-based assessment of nurses similar to the app for surgical assessment produced by Northwestern. There is also a tentative project storing guidelines for nurses in a fedora repository and 3) There is also a consortium of hospitals creating guidelines for social networking based clinical trials, a project that allows people to send their own medical data to whoever wrote the app with no doctor involvement.  The FDA is panicked about this.  Her team is designing the training for that and using Tincan as the tracking mechanism.  Valerie asked about guidelines. Ellen will discuss this topic when she has more information.   

3 Discussion on inaction

Valerie described three different situations where one may want to track inaction: 1) the educator wants to track instances where a learner appropriately ignored a detractor.  2) the educator wants to track instances where the learner ignored a significant event or data; 3) the educator has a checklist and wants to track whether the learner did or did not do a specific task in an accepted protocol.  She asked for comments from the group.  Scott asked where they would track if it was done incorrectly.  Valerie noted that was an action, so that would be tracked differently.  If learner A didn’t call the code and others did call the code within a simulation, it brings up group simulation dynamics.  They discussed what the report should look like.  Craig mentioned team-based learning.  Ellen asked what kinds of verbs should be used.  She was looking to ADL for answers.  Tom asked whether the statements are active or passively evaluating. Craig pointed out the difficulty measuring that, and suggested reporting only the action performed; not reporting inaction.  Is it sufficient to look for the absence of information?  David disagreed and emphasized the need for a mechanism to record something should have happened or it didn’t.  Craig thought you should consider both during simulation. 

Valerie hadn’t thought of them as separate.  She clarified human observation is subjective, we use verbs to indicate that and there has to be an analysis.   Ellen agreed there should be different places for analysis and review.  The “why” is a separate issue.  Valerie asked the group if they were leaning towards performed and failed to perform as the appropriate way to report on inaction.  David wanted to see examples of analytics based on XAPI statements.  Craig mentioned YET Analytics from Baltimore that has a learning records store.  He can send the video to the group.  

Valerie mentioned the two axes of inaction 1) inaction in response to an event or clinical finding, either appropriate or inappropriate; 2) inaction with regards to an expectation, such as a clinical protocol.   She asked the group if they needed to track the appropriateness of inaction and if that has come up before in XAPI statements.  Craig answered no; however, the simulation community would be interested.  He will report what he finds. 

Valerie added we can investigate that further within the cookbook with ADL’s input.  Lucas asked if inaction is being considered adding a verb or noun; or was it considered an outcome? Valerie answered they are considering verbs and tying action or inaction to a precursor.  

4 Discuss updated sample statements and table

Valerie noted the things highlighted in brown are new.  Lucas and Valerie discussed separating choose and visit.  

5 Discuss XAPI content at MedBiquitous annual meeting

Valerie commented the dates for the annual meeting are May 18-19, with early bird registration ending on March 31.  There may be a meeting of this group and definitely some kind of broader XAPI discussion.  The agenda is still being finalizing.  She will report back to the group on the exact timing.  She encouraged everyone to attend the meeting.  

Decisions

Action Items

  • Ellen and Valerie will contact David regarding a journal article describing the group’s work.
  • Craig will send the link to the YET analytics video.(Contact Craig for access)
  • Craig will report what he finds on inaction.

 

  • No labels