Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

July 2, 2013

Time:

12 PM CDT/1 PM EDT

Call in Number

USA +1-203-418-3123

Passcode

1599520

 

Attending: Mike Zarski, Chair; Len Armstrong, Prasad Chowdavarapu, James Fiore, Jyothi Holla, Jim Jahrling, Don Kooker, Scott Kroyer, Purvi Maniar, Alex Minkofsky, Amy Opalek, Valerie Smothers and Tricia Thomas. 

Agenda Items

  1. Review minutes of April 29 and April 8meeting 

The minutes were accepted 

2.  Review changes to specification and schema.

Valerie began the discussion on changes to the specification and schema.  An action item from the previous meeting was to accept the changes marked as “proposed changes” regarding the CertificationMaintenance and MaintenanceRequired elements. Purvi noticed a capitalization error on the Not maintained value; that has been corrected.  Valerie asked Purvi if that addressed her comment and Purvi agreed it did.  Valerie noted changes were redlined beginning on page 42 in the specification document. 

3.  Discuss representation of Clinical Nurse Leader credential (see ABNS website, verification letter, recertification guidelines)

Valerie and Tricia spoke about representing the Clinical Nurse Leader credential in the professional profile.  The links provided in the agenda are supporting information. There is also a powerpoint illustration that shows how CNL details map to the current specification.

The Certification Organization would be ABNS, the American Board of Nursing Specialties. They are similar to the ABMS for nursing specialists; they accredit nursing certification programs.  Tricia noted they are parallel in the process currently being used in medical credentialing.  ABNS accredits many of their accreditation programs; one is the clinical nursing leader program.  Recertification guidelines allow you to see what the requirements are and what is required for the initial certificate. Valerie commented that certification organization is defined as the organization certifying the certification board.  We may want to update the language to be organizations certifying or accrediting the certification board. (NOTE: it would be more precise to reference the Accreditation Board for Specialty Nursing Certification in the Certification Organization element).

The certification board providing the credential would be the Commission on Nurse Certification.  Certificate status which is the status of current specification has possible values of active, inactive, expired, revoked, suspended, and surrendered.  This is in line with possible statuses in the document. They also have the status of lapsed. Tricia explained lapsed means the certification has expired; re-certification can be accepted three months after application date.  Valerie asked the group if she should add lapsed as a status?  Trisha stated it’s dependent on each of the certification bodies.  Nurse certification decided for that application process and verification of hours of employment, they decided on 90 days after the lapse of certification.  If you fill out the application and get documents submitted, there is a 90 day grace period. Within that time frame, you do not have to retake the certification exam.    Lapsed is not common to all nursing certifying bodies.  Tricia mentioned the lapse is utilized for communication purposes, there is value in it.  The CMC board that she sits on is privy to that conversation.  Valerie asked Tricia what the status would be after 90 days.  Tricia noted it would be active back to the date of expiration.  So that if the certification lapsed December 31 and documents were submitted in February, the status would be active as of January 1.

Len asked if there was a similar situation within medical specialties. Brenda noted in the ABMS, the status of lapsed is not being used currently.  The term has been used by some of the board;  however, they display lapsed as expired.  Valerie commented just because we add it to the standard, organizations don’t have to support it.  Len suggested customizing description of status to issuing organizations.  Valerie noted we don’t have descriptions we just have the values; however, we could create definitions for each of these terms and use terminology consistently.  Woman said make it specific to organizations.  Valerie asked the group what they thought about including definitions of terms.  James thought that added a level of rigor that is not currently there, if we added lapsed as an enumerator, there needs to be a distinction between lapsed and expired. That could be explained using an example as with certificate name and the sports medicine example.  Valerie will update professional profile with current examples. 

Prasad asked if there is distinction between expired and lapsed and what is the distinction.  Tricia explained when you are expired you can’t go into board certified; when you are lapsed you are still in good standing so to speak.  When you are expired you are removed.  Different state laws require a grace period for your license.  Valerie asked the group if there was consensus to add lapsed as a value for certificate status.  The group agreed.  Valerie will edit certification status to add a value and add examples.  Valerie noted there are similar issues for certification status.  The certificate info container has details about a specific instance of a certificate. Slide 4 displays the current fields. First would be an ID, 12345; certification duration, time-limited as it is a 5 year certificate. Certification occurrence would be initial or re-certification depending on whether they are certifying for the first time or not. Certification issue date and expired date are shown with examples.

Tricia was very excited about this addition.  Len was interested in knowing the primary differences between nursing credentials.  Valerie commented that while we’ve mapped the CNL credential, we haven’t tried licensing yet.  Tricia added that the ANCC has other certifications. Valerie will look at the ANCC’s website and try to get them involved.  Tricia has contacts there she offered to share.  Mike thought that was a good idea and Valerie will follow-up with Tricia. 

James asked about certificate vs. certification status. Valerie noted Certificate status is defined as the “overall status”, such as being certified in general surgery.  The certification status would be a specific certificate being active or expired.  For example, I am in general surgery and my certificate was issued in 1976, and in 1986 I was re-certified.  Tricia asked how educational certificates were represented. Valerie commented that would be represented under EducationalInfo.  

4.  Documenting data sources

Len from Data Commons continued with information on documenting data sources.  He and Valerie spoke by telephone a few days earlier and talked about what Data Commons is doing to compile data from multiple sources and presenting it to the learner for multiple purposes.  An issue that has come up is the source of the data because Data commons is a unique use case compiling data from multiple sources on a single person.  Len explained it provides a unified view across multiple data sources.  There are a number of potential use cases.  The customer base is application developers that consume data for a variety of purposes.  For example, someone may want to verify that a person is a certified professional. You can verify whether the person is a board certificated pediatrician, more likely than not pulling data from a single provider and giving it to the consumer.  With data commons, data can come from a number of providers and research applications.  Researchers can look up elements they want from a data set. For example, names could be slightly different from organizations.  If you pull a name from a different organization, you should know which name came from what source.  They want to stick with the standard and see what we can do within the common standard to provide more specific information on the source of data.  They hope to have some deliverables by August.  We want to know how we can solve this problem with the current state of the specification currently available.  The short term solution would be to tag certain level of notes with processing instructions, like comments but invisible.  That would be the best of both worlds but an undesirable solution. 

Amy commented when thinking of elements having a certain set of common attributes each one has a source attribute.  For ECFMG element the one piece of metadata she wanted to have was data validity.  Meta data for the elements they are passing needs to be defined within a specific level, element or info level.  Len asked about validity along what context.  Amy mentioned the contact information they collect. They could provide the address on file; however, the odds are it would be useless because they lose contact with physician pool after they are certified.  After they are in practice it could be a thirty year old address. 

Mike stated he could see how source of data could come into play. They have profile report where much of the data is generated by them, but they list license status from FSMB.  Self reported elements don’t originate with them and that might be worth noting or being able to track.  Len spoke to Valerie about the question of validity within the context of the professional profile.  Valerie thought it is a valid discussion and she thinks it would be good to hear what the Technical Steering Committee would have to say.  Other organizations are dealing with this. What are the best practices? It would be great to know.  James agreed that talking with the TSC is an appropriate conversation.  Valerie will talk with the TSC and come back with a proposal by the next call.

Amy noted there may be other elements in the schema at the person level like restrictions on use.  That kind of issue needs to be captured at an element level.  Right now they may be applying it to the whole record. 

5.  Open discussion

Mike asked the group if anyone had any issues to discuss during the open discussion.  Valerie shared she is working hard to get the videos up on the website from the conference, and she is very close.  She will be announcing next year’s conference dates of May 18-20th with the board dinner Sunday night and the conference starts Monday.  Mike asked about the location and Valerie stated it was the same location at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine again.

Decisions

  • We will add lapsed as a value to CertificateStatus and CertificationStatus.

Actions

  • Valerie will update the specification to reflect decisions

  • Valerie will add documentation describing the CertificateStatus and CertificationStatus values.

  • Valerie will follow up with Tricia and contact the ANCC about becoming involved.

  • Valerie will talk with the Technical Steering Committee regarding the addition of source and validity attributes and come back with a proposal.
  • No labels