2024-08-20 Minutes
- CPB Admin Support
Document status: in progress
Meeting Date: 20-8-2024
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- Accepted in bold, not present in italics, tentative ?
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) - until 10am
Sharon Gibson (CPB Admin support)
Welcome and Introductions
Apologies:
Tara, Wouter, John, Heidi, Marina, Joost. Kanthan left at 10, Jill left at 10:10
Requests for AOB - new member Darin. Application will be posted on Discourse ACTION SG
Minutes of previous meeting 2024-05-29 Minutes 2024-06-18 Minutes
Approved after 7 days if no objections.
Actions from minutes (https://openehr.atlassian.net/jira/core/projects/CPB/board )
Paul adjusted actions on Jira
Update on CKAL role
Unfortunately this post has not been filled. PM is hoping the role will be re- advertised in the new year. JR added that there is currently a rethink. Financial resources are now available to support the work of CPB but time is an issue for members.
OpenEHR Conference 5-6th Nov. CPB in person meeting/workshop 4th Nov- planning
Monday 4th event in the afternoon. 1- 5pm. JR suggested offering people arriving early an invitation to the event. SB favoured a workshop and said that the Norwegian team and Heather held a really useful modelling workshop at their conference. She agreed this could be a wider invitation than CPB/EP. VA suggested a type of clinic to answer questions about modelling- with open questions from the meeting. SB added that this may be too much for the whole meeting but could be part of it. HL liked VA’s idea and said it is a valuable education in problem solving for those struggling with issues or new to this. She suggested that we ask people to nominate what they wish to bring to the AMA before the meeting and then select the topics of most general value.
PM concluded that we could offer 2 sections over 4 hours - 1. ask me anything (AMA) and 2. a prepared modelling workshop.
JR asked for our requirements. VA asked about size of room- JR responded that she will arrange for a room to fit our needs. SB suggested a board room set in the round. JR asked for equipment requirements. Heather suggested 2 projectors. Vebjorn suggested setting the number at 35. JR will book a room based on this and asked for the final details 2 -3 weeks before. The May minutes suggested a small working group. SB and VA will work on the initial description of content, invitation, registration - draft in confluence then document this on CPB Discourse for CPB panel to have further discussion and to refine this. PM also suggested we have objectives to include PR and share expertise on clinical modelling. SG and JR will support with admin as necessary. ACTION VA, SB and SG
Paul thanked the group for their excellent suggestions.
Change request management (Change Requests (Backlog) Processes )
PM has started to look at how we process the backlog of change requests. Draft link above. There are 365 change requests. PM is working on prioritising the requests. He is not prioritising demographic requests. He suggested that members of the panel work in pairs to tackle these and to make notes on next steps. He has used a spread sheet to record and track the requests. VA said that he is unable to access this sheet and would prefer it to be in Jira. SB agreed that Jira would be better. PM suggested a new Jira board just for CR management if this is a better way to track them. HL didn’t think that the requests should be done chronologically. PM explained that they would be listed chronologically but then prioritised from this list. Highest benefit, less complexity to start with. Some just need to be closed. SebG suggested concentrating on published archetypes first, which is about half of the list. SB pointed out that where there are several CRs for a single archetype then these need to be tackled as a group, unless they are a high level of complexity, and suggested organising CRs using the archetype ID. These are easier to break down on Jira. PM thanked the group for their thoughts and suggestions and will action these. ACTIONS PM
PM suggested a separate meeting to go into further detail. ACTION PM
International Patient Summary
Rachel has asked the board to prioritise content models for IPS. This ties in with FIHR collaboration and international demand. Heather summarised the work she is involved in. They are prioritising for the SPARK program developing Patient Summary based on content for IPS. Current template in CKM based on ISO standard but need to look at how to address issues. In discussion with Rachel and looking at FIHR spec for similarities and differences and look at implications. Currently it is a work in progress. Silje noticed a new IPS version. Heather has the published version (2022) VP is also interested in working on this. ROLLING AGENDA ITEM ACTION SG
PROM working group
KT explained that, following a discussion in a HiMed meeting, it was recognised that there is increasing need, especially around value based health care, to develop PROMS archetypes in a standardised manner. He said a wider discussion around the technical details of this and how it is translated into the software is required. He suggested that this needs an international view. VP asked for more information that we can look at. KT provided a link https://ckm.apperta.org/ckm/projects/1051.61.33 and asked the group to look at this. SB, who was part of this meeting, added that good progress was made in the meeting and there was an agreement to continue work on consolidating the modelling styles. They created a confluence page for the group. HL pointed out that the group need to be mindful that we need to keep CKAs and senior editors involved in that loop because scores and scales and proms are published tools and have constraints and copyrights. Sometimes the divergence in modelling style is caused by these constraints which maintain the authenticity of the validated tool, related to its specific function, and therefore we should only standardise what we do have flexibility with. To tread the line between these tensions is what is needed. Definitions between scales and scores, proms and prems need to be c clearly defined in the scope and communicated to the community. It isn’t simple and the process needs rigour. SB agreed with this and added that this was part of the initial discussion, also communicating to copyright holders that this work was not a threat to anyone’s business models but hopefully would give them increased reach. One suggestion was that OpenEHR International have a standardised cover letter to try to explain what they were trying to achieve. PM asked if the meeting had been documented but this was not known. KT explained they have been working on this for about 4 years and have experience in getting agreement from the major licenses in the UK and will share how they achieved this.
PM asked KT whether he would be happy to lead a working group with SB and HL to which he agreed. PM pointed out that there is a document on how to initiate and run a working group. Work will need to be tracked and documents to be kept in confluence. Consider membership wider than CPB/EP ACTION KT
ROLLING AGENDA ITEM update from PROM. ACTION SG
Kanthan left the group at 10
Translation editors
Deferred to next meeting
CPB and Working Groups Update
Some content covered in above items
CKM release
Deferred
AOB