EduWG Minutes 2015-04-13: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sauermann (talk | contribs)
Created page with "Preliminary!!!! Copy of Agenda Will be used to capture the discussion call = 9am Welcome = * Participants and introduction round = Status: What has..."
 
Sauermann (talk | contribs)
 
(20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Preliminary!!!!
Copy of [[EduWG Agenda 2015-04-13|Agenda]]
Will be used to capture the discussion call
= 9am Welcome =
= 9am Welcome =
* Participants and introduction round
* Participants and introduction round
** Stèphane Spahni (IHE user, university hospital, pharmacy expert, Switzerland)
** Rene Spronk (training provider, IHE expert, Netherlands)
** Stefan Sauermann (training provider, IHE expert, Austria)
** Karen Witting (consultant, IHE expert, USA)


= Status: What has happened so far =
= Status: What has happened so far =
Line 11: Line 10:


= Review of ICP drafts =  
= Review of ICP drafts =  
* CP IHE Foundation Level, CP IHE Document Sharing
* [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=CP_IHE_Foundation CP IHE Foundation Level], [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=CP_IHE_Document_Sharing CP IHE Document Sharing]
* What are the "most important" IHE profiles?  
 
 
* Discussion: What are the "most important" IHE profiles?  
** See [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0K9NsydyYTmMC1DS1NmRHVrOXM/edit Ranking list of profiles by CAT testing frequency]
** See [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0K9NsydyYTmMC1DS1NmRHVrOXM/edit Ranking list of profiles by CAT testing frequency]
** The "Top 20" are coloured dark green
** How was this list generated:
** Ranks 21-30 are coloured light green  
*** The [http://connectathon-results.ihe.net/advanced.php?highlight=2_0 Advanced Browsing] feature of the CAT results webpage was used
** The first 30 profiles (top 20%) may be considered to be "important"  
*** results were filtered for "Profiles" (Rows)
** There are regional differences!
*** results were filtered for "Companies" (Columns)
*** a specific CAT in the time 2010 to 2015 was selected (Title)
*** The results were exported into a table and the number of "*" per row (profile) was counted
*** the export was repeated for all CATs 2010 to 2015
*** the numbers of all CATs were summed up
** ranks were colour coded
*** The "Top 20" are coloured dark green
*** Ranks 21-30 are coloured light green  
*** The first 30 profiles (top 20%) may be considered to be "important"  
*** There are regional differences!
 
 
 
* Agreement: There are 3 categories:
** The first two categories will be selected from the "Top 20%" of all profiles
*** The current list has 143 profiles, so 20% of this is roughly 30 profiles
** Category 1: The profiles you must be able to discuss with actors and transactions, on Vol 1 level
*** Rank 1-20 on the "global" list
** Category 2: The profiles you only know a bit about, like what do they adress
*** Rank 21-30 on the "global" list
** Category 3: The profiles you can look up in IHE documents in case you need them.
*** all the rest


= Methods for testing the skills =
= Methods for testing the skills =
Line 32: Line 54:
** Similar methods are used by others.  
** Similar methods are used by others.  
** Does this make sense?
** Does this make sense?
* Decision:
** This method is a useful way to go forward
** the available list provides useful examples but definitely needs more work


= Management Issues =  
= Management Issues =  
* Which organisational structure is neccessary to design, implement and run the ICP scheme
* Which processes are needed to design, implement and run the ICP scheme
* Which organisational structure is neccessary
* Business model
* Business model


* HL7 has outsourced the actual remote testing to [https://www.kryteriononline.com/ Kryterion]
* Agreement: Professional / expert review of the exam questions and answers is necessary
** this needs to be independent from those who develop the questions / provide the exams / provide the training
** The test must be reviewed to be:
*** correct
*** not too easy / too hard
* Agreement: Process for verifying the test
** have experts and non-experts take the test (IHE workgroup members, CAT monitors, )
*** provide an incentive to them
** have them pay attention to correctness and level
** collect feedback from those experts
* Agreement: We need an "exam committee"
** identifies areas for certifications (e.g. "ICP Foundation" and "ICP Document Sharing")
** finds someome to write the exam questions and answers (= the test)
*** these need some benefit (e.g being listed as "Official IHE training providers"?? Being the "exam provider"??)
** verifies the test as described above
** gets approval from domain committe (if appropriate) and then the international board
* We need an exam provider
** TODO: How do others (e.g. HL7, DICOM, HIMSS) provide exams?
** Translations may be necessary.
*** This may be something for GDC / regional / national deployment committes to organise
* the IHE board will need a recommendation on the exam charge
** (Anecdotal evidence is in the range of 100-400 US$)
** TODO: Find out what others charge for the exam and certification, with a size / scope similar to the ICP Foundation
** TODO: What is the cost for providing the exam?
= Next meeting: Report to GDC at their next call =
See the [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=GDC_Agenda_2015-05-06 2015-05-06 GDC call agenda]


[[Education_Workgroup]]
[[Education_Workgroup]]
Line 42: Line 111:
[[Global Deployment Coordination Committee]]
[[Global Deployment Coordination Committee]]


[[Category: Agenda]]
[[Category: Minutes]]

Latest revision as of 11:55, 13 April 2015

9am Welcome

  • Participants and introduction round
    • Stèphane Spahni (IHE user, university hospital, pharmacy expert, Switzerland)
    • Rene Spronk (training provider, IHE expert, Netherlands)
    • Stefan Sauermann (training provider, IHE expert, Austria)
    • Karen Witting (consultant, IHE expert, USA)

Status: What has happened so far

See Google drive

Review of ICP drafts


  • Discussion: What are the "most important" IHE profiles?
    • See Ranking list of profiles by CAT testing frequency
    • How was this list generated:
      • The Advanced Browsing feature of the CAT results webpage was used
      • results were filtered for "Profiles" (Rows)
      • results were filtered for "Companies" (Columns)
      • a specific CAT in the time 2010 to 2015 was selected (Title)
      • The results were exported into a table and the number of "*" per row (profile) was counted
      • the export was repeated for all CATs 2010 to 2015
      • the numbers of all CATs were summed up
    • ranks were colour coded
      • The "Top 20" are coloured dark green
      • Ranks 21-30 are coloured light green
      • The first 30 profiles (top 20%) may be considered to be "important"
      • There are regional differences!


  • Agreement: There are 3 categories:
    • The first two categories will be selected from the "Top 20%" of all profiles
      • The current list has 143 profiles, so 20% of this is roughly 30 profiles
    • Category 1: The profiles you must be able to discuss with actors and transactions, on Vol 1 level
      • Rank 1-20 on the "global" list
    • Category 2: The profiles you only know a bit about, like what do they adress
      • Rank 21-30 on the "global" list
    • Category 3: The profiles you can look up in IHE documents in case you need them.
      • all the rest

Methods for testing the skills

  • A first list of exam questions has been collected
    • It contains "open text" questions
      • These may be published so that candidates can prepare for the exam
    • It contains single choice questions
      • These will be used for the exam
      • They will therefore remain "secret"
      • They may be published in the future, if there are so many that the sheer mass will assure a fair exam.
  • Discuss!!
    • This method was sucessfully used in IHE related training in Vienna.
    • Similar methods are used by others.
    • Does this make sense?
  • Decision:
    • This method is a useful way to go forward
    • the available list provides useful examples but definitely needs more work

Management Issues

  • Which processes are needed to design, implement and run the ICP scheme
  • Which organisational structure is neccessary
  • Business model
  • HL7 has outsourced the actual remote testing to Kryterion


  • Agreement: Professional / expert review of the exam questions and answers is necessary
    • this needs to be independent from those who develop the questions / provide the exams / provide the training
    • The test must be reviewed to be:
      • correct
      • not too easy / too hard


  • Agreement: Process for verifying the test
    • have experts and non-experts take the test (IHE workgroup members, CAT monitors, )
      • provide an incentive to them
    • have them pay attention to correctness and level
    • collect feedback from those experts


  • Agreement: We need an "exam committee"
    • identifies areas for certifications (e.g. "ICP Foundation" and "ICP Document Sharing")
    • finds someome to write the exam questions and answers (= the test)
      • these need some benefit (e.g being listed as "Official IHE training providers"?? Being the "exam provider"??)
    • verifies the test as described above
    • gets approval from domain committe (if appropriate) and then the international board


  • We need an exam provider
    • TODO: How do others (e.g. HL7, DICOM, HIMSS) provide exams?
    • Translations may be necessary.
      • This may be something for GDC / regional / national deployment committes to organise


  • the IHE board will need a recommendation on the exam charge
    • (Anecdotal evidence is in the range of 100-400 US$)
    • TODO: Find out what others charge for the exam and certification, with a size / scope similar to the ICP Foundation
    • TODO: What is the cost for providing the exam?

Next meeting: Report to GDC at their next call

See the 2015-05-06 GDC call agenda

Education_Workgroup

Global Deployment Coordination Committee