Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

January 15, 2015

Time:

11 EST/16 GMT/17 CET/18 EET

 

Attending: Tom Creighton, Matthew Cownie, Andrew Downes, Erick Emde, Lucas Huang, Ellen Meiselman, Valerie Smothers, David Topps, Craig Wiggins,

Valerie asked the new folks on the call to introduce themselves. Tom is from the technical team at ADL. Andrew is involved in development of XAPI.  His main role is encouraging people to adopt specification and help them adopt it well; Lucas is from B-line medical with a focus on simulation centers and capturing data from manufacturers and devices. He is interested in uniform platform to make things easier. He also does data mining research.     

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes

The minutes were accepted as submitted.

2 Grant call out in Alberta

David informed the group of a grant (two million total, 200,000 per province) to create content tools and platforms. This would provide funding to put an XAPI interface into Open Labyrith.  He wants to work with Ellen and Matt to construct things in a way that aligns with the work of this group.  The money would come in March.  There is a good chance of getting it.  Valerie requested David to bring requirements and use cases back to this interest group so we can learn.  Valerie added Open Labyrith is an open source tool for delivery of virtual patients. The patient outcome changes based on decisions made.  David mentioned he is keen on working with Matts tools at UWE.  

3 Discuss data requirements, sample statements and table (see ACLS presentation as well)

Valerie began the discussion on data requirements, looking at sample statements to determine what needs to be captured.  The group walked through the sample statements. The group recommended adding the following statements:

  • Jane Doe interviewed a patient under direct supervision within the course "taking history" on Jan 15, 2015 at 8:08 AM EST.
  • Sally Preceptor and James Observer observed Jane Doe's patient interview on Jan 15, 2015 at 8:08 AM EST.
  • Sally Preceptor videotaped Jane Doe's interview of a patient on Jan 15, 2015 at 8:08 AM EST.
  • Sally Preceptor rated Jane Doe on the competency interviewing a patient with a score of 4 using the Patient Interview performance framework.
  • Percy Shelley visited node A in Virtual patient Jerry Heartattack.
  • Virtual Patient Jerry Heartattack triggered alert 123, unsafe drop in blood pressure.
  • Percy Shelley scored 80 on Virtual Patient Jerry Heartattack in the domain airway management.
  • Percy Shelley received feedback 234 "You did not manage the patient's blood pressure" in activity Virtual Patient Jerry Heartattack.
  • Percy Shelley is a member of ER team A.

The group emphasized the need to track the course providing the context for the activity and whether the learner did a good job or not as determined by the preceptor.  Andrew added that the statements would likely reference one another to connect the preceptor activity to Jane Doe’s interview. Valerie added date and time to make it a discreet activity.   Lucas added videotape would facilitate the experience.  Ellen noted the attempt would be the actual time when the interview took place; everything else could reference that statement.  Valerie noted the key reason for getting observation are to rate the learner using the checklist; then data can be compiled across multiple activities.  Ellen agreed and added we want to understand how long and what it takes to make someone competent.  Matthew asked if different people want different data.  Ellen answered absolutely.  Valerie added particularly for workforce situations.    

Lucas mentioned asked about the relationships among competencies and whether that should be represented as a table.  Valerie replied that the competency framework would exist as a separate document that would be referenced by the XAPI statements. 

Rosalyn mentioned ACLS code simulations at the VA have the learner interacting with a manikin and virtual patient activity and the preceptor completing a checklist saying what they have done as a team.  Valerie asked if the team is identified as Team A or as individual team members.  Tom if the observation team is official or ad hoc?  Rosalyn explained either; there could be five to six people that show up to observe what has been going on and compare notes. Andrew asked if different observers might observe different competencies.  Rosalyn answered it could be.  Andrew clarified a named group could contain a list of people in the group.  The other option is having a list of agents or multiple statements.    

Valerie asked what statements David would want to track for Virtual Patient simulation.  David mentioned there are conditional rules and timers that trigger consequences if the learner has not done something by a certain time.  This needs to be captured, but it’s not an activity generated by a learner or preceptors.  Ellen asked if we needed to track this as the learner experiencing remediation.  David commented that the learner not the agent; he or she is being acted upon.  Matt commented the trigger is the timer.  Ellen provided the example of an airplane simulator creating a storm; events could be randomly decided or student triggered.  

Valerie asked Rosalyn what kind of data she would want out of Virtual Patients.  Rosalyn would want to score things.  Some cases are written virtual patient pathway is OK but not the best; is there a way to express that? Matt suggested “Jane Doe visited node 8,” building a map of what the learner visited so that the path can be compared to what an expert does. 

Andrew commented they track on a much higher level in XAPI.  They can look at pathways taken by experts verses people at different stages of learning.  Ellen added they are looking for emergent properties. 

Valerie suggested the group take a look at the virtual patient sample statements and think of other things to track. She encouraged the group to send her ideas or add them to the wiki. They will continue the progress next time and use the sample statements to further build out the requirements table.  

4 Open discussion

Decisions

Action Items

  • The group will send Valerie ideas for sample statements or add them to the wiki.
  • Valerie will take sample statements and ensure they are represented on the requirements table. 

 

  • No labels