The group debated the need for describing unique state requirements within the Activity Report and urged that the specification have a place for that. Carl Singer and Monica Quiroz both offered to investigate this further and get back to the group.
The group also proposed that when describing the accrediting body, the specification allows for the full name and the abbreviation of the accrediting body to be used . (Note: the element for describing the accrediting body comes from Healthcare LOM. Currently the value for that is a recommended list of well-known abbreviations. Since public review for healthcare lom is closed, I would recommend changing the presentation without changing the underlying data structure, but we can continue to discuss.)
Several participants encouraged that the group collect sample CME certifications so that we can line up the specification with real certifications. A wiki is being implemented that will facilitate this sharing.
The group also recommended having provider ID as an optional element. Ed Kennedy mentioned that the ACCME does have an id for all of its accredited providers.
• Dawn Ainger, Genova Technologies, email@example.com
• Jeff Cobb, LearnSomething, firstname.lastname@example.org
• Peter Greene, MedBiquitous, email@example.com
• Jeanette Harmon, AMA, firstname.lastname@example.org
• Ed Kennedy, ACCME, email@example.com
• Irina Laghidze, Moberg Research, firstname.lastname@example.org
• Ann McKibbon, McMasters, email@example.com
• Christie Morales, American Heart Association, firstname.lastname@example.org
• Monica Quiroz, AMA, email@example.com
• Carl Singer, CECity, firstname.lastname@example.org
• Leah Wang, WebMD, email@example.com
• David Ward, AACN, David.Ward@aacn.org