2024-06-18 Minutes

Owned by CPB Admin Support
Last updated: 28-Aug-2024
5 min read

Document status: in progress

Meeting Date: 18th June 2024

Meeting Time: 9 -10.30 BST

Location: Online, via Zoom

Planned agenda:

Acronyms:
CPB: Clinical Program Board
CPXP: Clinical Program Expert Group
CKA: Clinical Knowledge Administrator (role in the Ocean’s openEHR CKM)

Invited to meeting- not present in italics

  • Paul Miller (CPB co-chair),

  • Vanessa Pereira (CPB co-chair),

  • Sebastian Garde (CPB)

  • Wouter Zanen (CPB)

  • Heidi Hoikkalainen (CPXP)

  • Marina Rudenko (CPB)

  • Joost Holslag (CPB)

  • Andjela Pavlovic (CPB)

  • Tara Bonet (CPB)

  • Kanthan Theivendran (CPB)

  • Heather Leslie (CPXP)

  • John Tore Valand (CPXP)

  • Silje Bakke (CPXP)

  • Vebjørn Arntzen (CPXP)

  • Jill Riley (openEHR International Board)

  • Sharon Gibson (CPB Admin support)

 

  1. Welcome and Introductions

Meeting started late due to issue with meeting link. Meeting was not quorate therefore it was decided to defer review of minutes of previous meeting

  1. Apologies:

  • Vanessa Pereira, Wouter Zanen, Marina Rudenko, Joost Holslag, Tara Bonet, Heather Leslie, Vebjorn Arntzen

  1. Requests for AOB

none

  1. Minutes of previous meeting https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/x/TQDPjQ

deferred

  1. Actions from minutes (Jira board link )

Paul shared the Jira board and explained the changes made. There is now a blocked column for issues that need to be ‘parked’ for a while.

Paul would like the group to use the board to update tasks more frequently. Silje suggested that we have sub tasks so smaller tasks that can be moved on more quickly to use Jira board more effectively to give more context and flow.

Onto server - no current action. Pending further work.

1.1s are unlikely to happen until the autumn due to the holiday period.

  1. Risk Register https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/CPB-37

Silje has worked on this to change the colour levels to the risk column as suggested at the last meeting. She also added number 25, CKA scope of work too great, and suggested risk level. Sebastian agreed that this is a concern. Paul thought this important to acknowledge and pointed out that the CPB/EP group will need to support the CKA and ensure that their work is achievable and prioritised. Paul suggested that we need working models to get through the backlog and new work. Currently there is a backlog of 212 change requests and this needs to have a process in place and operating to progress the work. He would like to see this in place by the date of the conference. ACTION ?

Most of the risks are about resourcing - paid, funded and voluntary work are the routes for getting resources to achieve tasks. Paul asked what the group's thoughts were on this and how this mix of resourcing works. Silje agreed but stated that a core group of funded CKAs would be needed as the work grows and a larger group of voluntary contributors, funded by their employers, working on projects that would be of relevance to their home organisations. Paul asked Andjela if this was a workable process for her and she agreed especially where it relates to change requests that are needed as part of her work. Silje stated that the CKA role would work across all initiatives in the community and it would be difficult to secure voluntary work from organisations that didn’t hold that work as a priority.

 

  1. Process for publication of an archetype- Jira 46

Silje outlined the process from her own experience. Currently there are no funded CKAs so it is not very organised or well prioritised and tends to be based on the needs of their home organisation. The ideal would be that change requests are handled using an agreed upon prioritisation process which would need to be developed.

When they work on priority models for home organisations and there are other change requests, these they are likely to be actioned. Other change requests are not taken. It also very much depends on the time commitment for the work as easy to medium difficulty tasks tend to be dealt with more quickly. Some requests might take month or years because of blocks to work.

Some requests involve translations - a translation administrator for global will be a welcome change. Sebastian said that a backlog of multiple translations is a current issue but hopefully that this will be reduced. Heidi asked how a translator administrator is appointed. Silje responded that this would come from a small group, 2 or 3, within the translations community. Paul added that this would need to be under a process for quality control, possibly an outline guide for the setting up and running of a translation group. Sebastian suggested translation reviews are discussed with translation admin. Silje responded that this depends on whether content reviews are carried out.

Silje continued that when the archetype is unfamiliar it often leads to increased knowledge as CKAs have to develop their understanding to complete the request. Paul asked if it would be possible to give an average time or resource level to complete a request. Silje answered that she couldn’t give an answer but suggested that Heather should also be asked about this. Some archetypes take months or years to complete and it can be very difficult to consolidate all the changes. Every archetype is so different that change requests can not be given a general amount of time.

Heidi added that our expert CKAs know this process so well and this would be difficult for anyone coming in to this area. She asked how skills are developed to gain this expertise. Silje answered that CKAs do not work alone and it usually works as a type of apprenticeship where knowledge is shared and experienced. Unfortunately, trying to act as a consultant and giving dedicated time to this, whilst in a full time job is not really possible. There are so many kinds of change that could be requested, from changing a word to a whole document.

Kanthan talked about review journals and the model that is used for this where a number of voluntary reviewers contribute to the final review. He asked whether this type of model would be useful. Sebastion suggested an incentive for the voluntary contributors and Kanthan added that in the UK an accreditation is given to reviewers that contribute to a successful journal and it counts toward Continuing Professional Development (CPD). Silje agreed that recognition is important. She suggested looking at other ways of getting help such as crowd sourcing sites as which give onsite recognition. Part of the solution to scale things up is to get more experienced editors doing reviews but this would need someone with oversight before and after reviews are started and on to publication. Could this be a CKA job?

Silje shared an example where an archetype had been published without notifying the community through Discourse and suggested that, to prevent this happening, publication of archetypes should go out as version 1 after review and be verified by the CKA. Usually a notice is posted on discourse saying that an archetype is ready for publication. Paul suggested that everything is channeled through a high level editorial group and Silje explained that in Norway they use a review editorial board before publication who also set requirements depending on the type of archetype, for example a cardiologist involved in reviewing an ECG archetype. She suggested a best practice document and a check list to ensure clarity. Sebastion agreed and added that a minimal agreement as to the number of reviewers, specialists, countries. This would a global audience confidence in a high quality and robust result.

Angela left the meeting at this point.

Paul thanked the group for a useful discussion.

Key words and suggestions from discussion

  • change requests are handled using an agreed upon prioritisation process

  • an outline guide for the setting up and running of a translation group

  • translation reviews

  • Average time and resourcing for a change request????

  • Development of new CKA and reviewer expertise

  • journal review model, incentives and CPD

  • CKA oversight of review before publication

  • Notice on Discourse before publication

  • High level editorial group

  • Prepublication best practice document and checklist

 

  1. openEHR Conference 5-6th Nov. CPB in person meeting/workshop 4th Nov-

Planning group needed after summer ACTION VP PM

  1. CPB and Working Groups Update- deferred

 

  1. AOB - none

 

NEXT MEETING AGENDA ITEMS

CKM release