From: Allan Bell [abell@highwire.stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:49 PM To: MedBiquitous Standards Committee Cc: Bill Witscher Subject: creditType and activityCertification requests from HighWire Press Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:00 PM Flag Status: Flagged Hi Valerie, As you have been discussing with Lorena, we are trying to develop the standard MB Activity Report here in XML. We are having some trouble with two elements in the Healthcare LOM, which is part of the Activity Report. MB allows only certain valid values, and we have other values here at HW that won't map. 1. creditType We'd like MB to add "CPD" to the restricted list. 2. activityCertification MB needs to either add several values that we have, and they don't, or, make this list unrestricted and add our values to the "recommended list". We prefer the latter, for two reasons: a) this list is bound to grow over time, and be hard to manage b) a highly related element, accreditingBody, is already unrestricted and using a recommended list. Every time we add a value to accreditingBody, it has a corresponding value in activityCertification, and it would be more logical to have them both be unrestricted. As HW is somewhat at the mercy of what the customer wants in these two elements; it's quite awkward to make a new credit category (as HighWire calls it) for the customer's CME site, but then be unable to put it into the MB AR report without a change at MB every time. The values HW has that are not in the MB restricted list are (in order of importance): EBAC CE Credit Hours RCP APA Category 1 AAP Prep Please let me know if you have any questions. allan Begin forwarded message: > From: "Valerie Smothers" > Date: October 24, 2006 8:42:55 AM PDT > To: "Lorena Hitchens" > Cc: "Damon Silver" > Subject: RE: Small glitch with MB AR and HC LOM: accreditingBody > > Dear Lorena and Damon, > > I'm glad to hear the implementation is moving along and appreciate > your letting us know about the snafus you've encountered along the > way. Nothing beats implementation for working the kinks out! > > Damon does have the most recent version of the spec. And all of your > comments are certainly valid. Here are my thoughts > > 1. accreditingBody - right now it is a recommended list, and the > schema data type is CharacterString, so anything is allowed, just as > you said. Sounds like we're OK on that one. > > 2. activityCertification - right now this is a restricted list. I > think we added a couple of items to try and meet your needs (or maybe > that was accrediting body?)If there are more that are not on the list > now, we should definitely bring this up for discussion in the > Standards Committee. We can either expand the list or make it a > character string like the other one. Bill Witscher is your primary > representative on the standards committee, and Alan Bell is the > alternate. They should both have access to the list serv and be able > to submit comments. The email to submit to is: > medbiqstandards@lists.ctsnet.org Please be sure to include the values > that are not included now so that we can get a good idea about the > restricted vs. recommended trade offs. > > 3. creditType - Right now this is a restricted list. We can certainly > add CPD. This is one where I think it might be best to stick with > restricted to facilitate search based on CME type, but we really want > to hear your feedback and make sure the spec addresses your needs. Can > you ask Bill or Allan to include this in the note they send to the > standards > committee? > > Thanks for the time and effort that both you and Damon are putting > into shaping this standard, Lorena. The whole industry will benefit > from your experience and insight! > > Best regards, > Valerie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lorena Hitchens [mailto:lorenah@highwire.stanford.edu] > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:29 PM > To: Valerie Smothers > Cc: Damon Silver > Subject: Re: Small glitch with MB AR and HC LOM: accreditingBody > > > > Hello again Valerie, > > We have a similar issue (not a problem yet, but potentially) with the > short list of valid values in the creditType (CME, CE, CNE, CPE, and > CHES). We have some British customers who like to use the acronym > "CPD" for "Continuing Professional Development" instead of the > American-style "CME". This is not a critical problem this minute, but > we think it could be within a few months. > > I also wanted to restate something in my original email: Our problem, > technically, right now is that we have values for > "activityCertification" that are not in the list of valid values. > > Thanks for your attention. Let us know what you recommend. > > -Lorena > > > > > On Oct 18, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Lorena Hitchens wrote: > >> >> Hi Valerie, >> >> Well, we're in the home stretch with our implementation of the MedBiq >> Activity Report. We're having a little problem, though, and it's >> actually with the Healthcare LOM. >> >> Back in March/April 2006, around the time the "providerAccreditation" >> had its name changed to "accreditingBody"...I remember the group >> talking about the list of recommended values for "accreditingBody" >> and > >> "activityCertification" -- and whether these should be hard-coded by >> MedBiq (a constant chore to keep up), or whether to leave it open >> (allowing endless variations). >> >> I believe the former is what was settled on...? That's why the VA >> sent > >> you the list of accreditors they use, and I sent you our list of >> accreditors in use at HW? Does any of this ring a bell? >> >> To be more precise, it seems that "accreditingBody" has a list of >> *recommended* values, but anything is actually allowed. However, >> "activityCertification" has a list of valid values, only. This is >> where we're getting caught in a tangle. >> >> We have some "accreditingBody" values (which is looser) that don't >> really work with the strict "activityCertification" values in the LOM >> schema. >> >> What should we do here? Send you all our possible values for >> "activityCertification" for inclusion in the list (which is bound to >> expand)? Or should the values for "activityCertification" be >> "recommended", instead of the strict "valid" list? >> >> Thanks for your help, >> >> -Lorena >> >> P.S. Apologies if we have an old copy of the LOM schema, but my >> programmer says he got the most current version he could find on the >> MedBiq site (v 0.81). >> > ------ End of Forwarded Message --- You are currently subscribed to medbiqstandards as: vsmothers@medbiq.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.ctsnet.org/u?id=11432H&n=T&l=medbiqstandards or send a blank email to leave-medbiqstandards-11432H@lists.ctsnet.org