Item 3: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Analysis.== | ==Analysis.== | ||
Neutrality of the monitors during the connect-a-thon is a key issue. | |||
*Selection process for the monitors | |||
*Neutrality of the monitors | |||
==Results.== | ==Results.== | ||
Better tools and test specification have been recognized and are handled in [[ | Better tools and test specification have been recognized and are handled in [[Item 4]] and [[Item 5]]. | ||
==Roadblocks.== | ==Roadblocks.== | ||
Revision as of 11:34, 20 November 2006
Strengthen status and standing of connect-a-thon process.
Objective.
This item may be split within the following subitems
- Think of independent healthcare provider “jury” at Connect-a-thon.
- Have ISO certification of IHE Connect-a-thon process.
- Contact some recognized testing bodies and invite them to Connect-a-thon
Analysis.
Neutrality of the monitors during the connect-a-thon is a key issue.
- Selection process for the monitors
- Neutrality of the monitors
Results.
Better tools and test specification have been recognized and are handled in Item 4 and Item 5.
Roadblocks.
Work breakdown: Actions and organization and timing
- Identify relevant certification bodies in Europe and invite them to the next european connect-a-thon