Difference between revisions of "Item 3"
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
==Results.== | ==Results.== | ||
Better tools and test specification have been recognized and are handled in [[Item 4]] and [[Item 5]]. | Better tools and test specification have been recognized and are handled in [[Item 4]] and [[Item 5]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Enter the process of certifying the connect-a-thon ! | ||
==Roadblocks.== | ==Roadblocks.== | ||
Revision as of 11:46, 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.
The connect-a-thon process needs better documentation and process.
There is not guarantee that the process is identical in all region. What are the criteria to determine that a test is successful ? What if a vendor does not find any test partners ? There is a need for more description of the process and documentation.
Equality of the vendors : how to be fair with vendors and not neglect vendors that present a few number of actors when systems presenting many actors would like more monitor time.
Need for a clear definition of what is a system !
Need to define who can attend the connect-a-thon ! Visitors ? Avoid spying but do not neglect the social aspect of the event and still allow vendors to meet during the event !
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.
Enter the process of certifying the connect-a-thon !
Roadblocks.
Work breakdown: Actions and organization and timing
- Identify relevant certification bodies in Europe and invite them to the next european connect-a-thon