Talk:ITI and PCC Scope

ITI and PCC Scope Meeting

Kboone 15:53, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Keith: How do we make the dividing line?

Bill: The only concistent words, if it has Clinical Content, PCC, otherwise, ITI.

Mike: Agrees, let's try some example.

Manuel: Agrees, has a profile proposal, doesn't know where to put it, e.g., with regard to scheduling.

Bill and Mike disagree on where this might go.

Larry: In that case, definition of Clinical might be raising some issues. From a technical perspective, there are non-technical portions of scheduling, needs to have domain expertise. Clinical to Providers means Patients, singularly or collectively. Tends to agree with Bill that scheduling is not wholly ITI, qualified that technical component does belong in ITI.

Bill: If inside the scheduling discussion, new transports, infrastructure, would be an ITI issue, if existing infrastructure, could stay in PCC.

Larry: Division might be transport vs. content.

Bill: I think so.

Larry: Counterexample is BPPC.

Bill: Very good point. Computer science engineering content.

Mike: Back to Appt example, content of a scheduling record, transport which everyone understands, other issues such as processing.

Manuel: The way it is written (proposal), it has no clinical content.

Keith: Bill's first observation helps make a good dividing line.

Bill: Anything on the operational side, technologists might not know about.

Keith: ITI has operational expertise.

Bill: May be a fine line that needs to be discussed.

Manuel: Financial would be different.

Mike: There are some that are clearly PCC and ITI. Up to planning co-chairs to review each. Some will straddle, and could land in one place or another. Co-chairs of both committees should coordinate.

Karen: Scheduled call on second day of each planning meeting that is a cross domain call to have a call to discuss.

Bill: Towards second half of each planning call, make sure that there is an opportunity for the other committee to call in.

Larry: Address dependencies by divvying up appropriately, make sure infrastructure exists.

Keith: Kind of like we did with RFD and QED.

Bill: Agreed.

Mike: Has PCC and ITI expertise cross committee.

Karen: We want to be careful about having JOINT profiles is difficult. Could be a logistical nightmare. One domain should own.

Keith: I would agree.

Bill: Makes a lot of sense.

Larry: If we need to expedite, then we might need to work together.

Mike: If we need to expedite, appoint coeditors, deal with nuances together.

Keith: I like that.

Bill: Reponsibility on both sides makes a lot of sense.

Karen: Make sure we understand clearly how we are moving forward with these. Hard on everyone.

Mike: Support that.