Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

August 11, 2014

Time:

9 MDT/11 EDT/17 CEST/18 EEST

Attending: Erick Emde, Chair; Daniela Giordano, Co-Editor; Dawn Carroll, John Nash and Valerie Smothers

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes

The minutes were accepted as submitted.

2 Comments on proposed modification

Valerie mentioned she did not receive any comments on the proposed modifications.  The discussion centered on how to include references to external documents. Healthcare education would have a references sub-element to refer to a broad range of external documents and a competency element to refer to a competency object and competency framework.  Both the references element and the competency element would use the reference datatype used by the Performance Framework specification.  Erick asked if the competency and reference are required elements.  Valerie answered that the References and Competency elements are optional. If you have a Competency element, two reference sub-elements are required: one for the competency object and one for the competency framework.  The proposals were approved.  Valerie and Daniela will integrate the changes in the next iteration of the specification.    

3 Schema and spec update status (see schemas)

Valerie updated the schemas and sent snapshots to Daniela for review and updating.  She will add the ones that were discussed previously.  Erick tabled the discussion for the next meeting.    

4 Open discussion

The first item Valerie discussed was the road map for development and the progress the group has made.  There is a page on the wiki detailing changes to consider in version two.  She will send a link out to the group.  Dawn and other groups are already capturing, cataloging and tracking patient consent data.  John asked for clarification and examples of consent forms associating back to the metadata.  Dawn commented their forms are located in a secured site and they have to have something to identify and locate them quickly.  Erick asked if she was using a URI.  Dawn uses file names to track consent.   John asked if she attached images as well.  Dawn answered they use content that the image is in, usually a video.  Valerie noted with the eVIP group added a consent field that included a catalog and entry field linked to the document.  Dawn agreed with the format.  Valerie will circulate new definitions and the data model to the group.  John was doubtful their institution would adopt the changes since they deal with a lot of third party vendors.  It would benefit them if there was an intense copyright review on the front end.  Daniela recommended developing best practices that ensure the privacy of the patient’s name is maintained.

The second item Valerie mentioned concerned a proposed educational scenario element with values teaching, learning, or assessment. The element comes from eVIP.  Erick and Daniela commented the controlled vocabulary is redundant with other vocabularies.  Valerie will circulate the recommendation to omit Educational scenario and see what feedback is received from the group.  

Erick mentioned Interactive elements is redundant as well.  Valerie commented some of the ideas were further refined in Meducator. 

Valerie noted that Competencies and Resource type are both resolved.  Integrating the meducator vocabulary for educational level and friend of a friend are things we haven’t tackled.  We may need more time for educational content.  MedBiquitous added the following values to educational context:  patient education, caregiver education, primary education, secondary education, vocational training, undergraduate education, undergraduate professional education, graduate professional education, and continuing professional development.  Meducator and MedEd portal are dealing with it in different ways. Valerie was not sure we want to change vocabulary but we could add it to the agenda for a future call. 

Valerie noted the AAMC intended audience is a little bit different.  She asked if the group wanted to change this.  John mentioned they recently added administration.  Professional development courses were recently added; however they weren’t geared to clinicians or students, but geared to administration.   Daniela commented once the intended audience is specified, we imply the educational context.  If mapping is one to one, maybe we could give some thought and reconsider in relation to intended audience and table for further discussion. 

Valerie explained the friend of a friend social networking concept.  Daniela agreed it would be worthwhile considering including in the new standard.  She will take a closer look and discuss on the next call.  Erick agreed friend of a friend data would be dynamic but the metadata thus far is static, so he is unsure how that would work.  Valerie agreed to look on the web for descriptions and circulate more information. 

Decisions

 

The following proposals were approved:

  • Change the healthcare lom Resource type vocabulary to the one specified at Proposed Vocabulary for learningResourceType.
  • Add a references element to healthcareEducation as outlined in Proposed modifications, references and learning resource type.
  • Add a competency element to healthcareEducation as outlined in Proposed modifications, references and learning resource type.

Action Items

  • Valerie and Daniela will update the schema and spec.
  • Valerie will circulate a proposal related to tracking patient consent data and omitting educational scenario and interactive elements.
  • We will note best practices related to tracking consent and maintaining patient privacy.

For A Future Call

  • Discuss vocabularies used for educational context, including overlap with mEducator educational level values and MedEdPortal Intended Audience
  • Discuss Friend of a Friend integration

 

  • No labels