Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

December 2, 2010

Time:

8 AM PST/11 AM EST

Please note: the conferencing service will ask you to enter the pound sign. Press # for pound.
To mute, press *6.

Attending: Susan Albright and Marc Triola, co-chairs; Dmitriy Babichenko, Terri Cameron, Chris Candler, Erica Friedman, Sean Hilton, Josh Jacobs, Cindy Lybrand, Chandler Mayfield, Quinn Montgomery, Dan Nelson, Brian Rutledge, Al Salas, Rosalyn Scott, Kevin Souza, Tim Willett

Agenda Items

1 Introductions

Susan welcomed the group and thanked them for joining the call. The group proceeded with introductions.

  • Susan is from Tufts, where she is working on home grown system. She is co-chair of the working group.
  • Marc is from NYU where he is director of educational informatics. They use sakai, and he is co-chair of the working group.
  • Cindy is from East Tennessee State University, where she works with the Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.
  • Dmitriy is from University of Pittsburgh where he is a software engineer and graduate student. He is working to redesign their lms.
  • Erica is from Mount Sinai Medical Center where she oversees assessment. They currently use e-value and currmit.
  • Josh is a physician at The American University of Singapore. He oversees the curriclum of undergraduate medical education and educational technology. He was at University of Hawaii. He has been involved with Currmit and Tusk.
  • Kevin is from UCSF, where he is Assistant Dean for Medical Education and Director of Educational Technology. He developed the Ilios curriculum management system and is working on new open source release.
  • Rosalyn is co-chair for the MedBiquitous Competencies Working Group, on the Board of Directors of MedBiquitous, and is Associate Chief of Staff of Medical Education and Director of Simulation at the Dayton VA. She also holds appointments at Wright State.
  • Terri is the AAMC program manager for the Curriculum Inventory Project.
  • Al is an IT business relationship manager at AAMC. He worked with Currmit until about 5 years ago.
  • Chris is Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at University of Oklahoma.
  • Dan is from new innovations, a curriculum management vendor.
  • Brian is from University of Mississippi. They use e-value and currmit.
  • Sean is from St George’s University of London, where he is Deputy Principal, the lead on education, and a MedBiquitous board member. They use Moodle for course management and have a number of European links through virtual patient projects.
  • Tim is an educator in Canada, working for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. He is co-chair of the competencies working group. He worked with University of Ottowa on curriculum mapping using One45.
  • Quinn is from e-value, and he works with med schools to implement their curriculum management system.
  • Chandler is from University of California San Francisco Educational Technology. He works with Kevin on Ilios and Moodle.

2 Goals of the working group

Valerie explained that the goal of the working group is to develop an initial technical specification for the exchange of medical school curriculum inventory data. While Medical school is the initial focus, we want the standards develop to work for other health professions undergraduate and graduate level education as well. In addition, several members of the group will likely implement the standard for the exchange of curriculum data, the AAMC being one implementer and curriculum amanagement systems being others. This group and MedBiquitous staff can provide assistance with the implementation process. 

Marc commented that Currmit is going away, and that is one thing prompting the development of these standards. We are hoping these data will serve broader needs locally and at the AAMC level.  WAe have a great group of commercial vendors, open source users, and home grown system developers participating.

3 Development process

a. ANSI

Valerie described the ANSI process depicted in the flowchart. There is a whole process leading up to the point where the working group convenes which is not depicted. The first point on the flowchart, the working group preparation of a draft standard, will take several months. Normally, it takes several years, but thanks to our accelerated standards development process, this will be much shorter. The working group then works with the MedBiquitous Standards Committee, the official consensus body of MedBiquitous, to resolve any comments or issues raised through the rest of the standards vetting process.

Dmitriy asked whether the group was standardizing the data itself or the mechanism for exchanging the data. Valerie replied that the group was standardizing the format for the data and not the exchange mechanism, although exchange mechanisms would certainly be part of the implementation discussion.

Marc asked if the standards research component of the project had taken place yet. Valerie replied that it had not but that she would be working on that in the near future.

b. Schedule

Because the work is funded through a AAMC accelerated standards development project, we have an agressive schedule.

The group will use the following call schedule, all calls at 11 Am Eastern US time. 

  • Dec 2
  • Mar 24
  • Apr 14
  • Apr 28
  • May 26
  • Jun 9
  • Jun 23
  • Jul 14
  • Jul 28
  • Aug 11
  • Aug 25
  • Sep 8
  • Sep 22

c. AAMC sponsorship

Terri explained that the Curriculum inventory is the 3rd step. MedEdPortal is already in place. A user could do a search for pneumonia and find all the related content in MedEdPortal. The Curriculum Inventory system could show how pneumonia is being taught across schools in the US and other countries. It would contain details about the educational methods used, etc. The Performance Improvement portal would help users find opportunities to increase their knowledge. This group is focusing on the standards supporting the curriculum inventory system. Many schools already have a local curriculum management system. With the new portal, reporting to the Curriculum Inventory portal all happens on back end without additional data entry.

Other tools are in development as well. They used to have a separate curriculum directory populated by Currmit. But response in recent years has been poor and data inaccurate. In contrast, LCME questionnaire response is 100% and the data is much more accurate. LCME questionnaire provides access to 40 years of data, so one can see trends. The curriculum inventory system will pull data from the new curriculum directory rather than requesting that information from schools again. The curriculum inventory will contain data related to content and pedagogy, such as educational and assessment methods, competencies, objectives, etc.

Another system in development is the LCME database. Every 7-8 years, schools will work with LCME database to prepare for accreditation. It will bring together all data submitted to AAMC related to LCME accreditation. We may need to have another working group to enable that. Terri explained that the LCME is the accrediting body for medical schools in the US and Canada.

Developing standards. First goal to meet Us and Canadian schools. Ultimately want to make available to schools in Europe and asia and compare curriculum. Don’t want to build something that doesn’t meet needs of international educators. Also looking at other health professions. Vetrinary schools love currmit.

Ultimately, all of this data will be brought together in a medical school performance dashboard. This will be a place where deans can log in and see all the data submitted, and who submitted it. It will pull in demographic data, my school vs national, regional, etc. The scope will include Financial data, clinical operations data, and educational data.

4 Communications

  • wiki
  • listserv

Susan commented that wikis and mailing lists are used for all of the MedBiquitous working groups to facilitate collaboration and communication between calls. Valerie walked through the wiki, explaining that when users log in, they are able to edit pages and add new pages. Everyone should have received log in information from Jody prior to the call; if not, please contact Jody or Valerie to get wiki log in information.

Communications provides a place for the working group to work on presentations related to the group. Agendas, minutes, and links to supporting documents would all be posted under meetings. Draft specifications and schemas for review will be under specifications and schemas. We will connect information about how the standard might be used under use cases and scenarios. It would be a good idea to start collecting information on different curricula from different schools so we can get a sense of the variety in structure.

Tim commented that we’ve talked about universities. He asked if the standard would extend to cpd.

Valerie commented that an existing MedBiquitous standard, Healthcare LOM, already addresses many of the characteristics pertinent to CME, such as number and type of credits, commercial support, financial disclosure, etc. Tim commented that it provides no way to structure a comprehensive curriculum on a topic. CValerie replied that we could integrate the standard we develop for undergraduate and graduate curricula with Healthcare LOM to come up with a suitable solution.

5 Project plan and timeline

The group acknowledged that the timeline was ambitious. Marc asked if the AAMC has use cases on recipient end. Terri replied that they will be looking over those in the next week. That will help with use case development.

The group asked if we could start the work for use case development now while Valerie was out on maternity leave. Valerie replied yes. Good next steps for the group to take are:

  • Submission of sample curriculum structure (or structure for a part of the curriculum)
  • Ideas for use cases – how do you see a standard for curriculum data being used?

Terri commented that when they met with vendors, they discovered many schools use different tools at different levels. The standard would provide an opportunity to indrease interoperability across tools so that data can move freely within a single school.

Susan asked Valerie to send the group links to use cases of other working groups so that they could review them as exemplars.

Tim asked if group members could post that to the wiki. Valerie strongly encouraged members to post to the wiki.

6 Next steps

Terri commented that it would be helpful to post curriculum schematic – graphic showing 4-5 yr curriculum by year. That will help us to see variations.

Marc added that when it comes to areas where there are controlled vocabularies, if there are existing standards, we should include that in our review. Not just standards defining the structure, but how people are using competencies, lists, etc.

Terri commented that the competencies working group did a marvelous white paper and a set of use cases that would be good examples for the group to review.

Tim agreed, noting that this group could leverage the work of the competencies working group.

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie will send exemplar use cases to the working group.
  • Group members will submit examples fo their curriculum structure and schematic as well as ideas for use cases.
  • Valerie will complete standards research and include controlled vocabularies, how people are using competencies, and existing standards and practices.
  • No labels