Am 09.09.2011 11:56, schrieb Diego Bosc?: > Oh, then we need more qualified editors. Shouldn't we ask also the > users which field of medicine they are specialized on and put them as > editors for that kind of archetypes? We do ask the users for their profession and the health area / field of medicine and also if they are generally available to act as a reviewer. They are asked when they sign up, but anybody can change this at any stage via Tools/Update my profile.
These users will be asked to act as reviewers (not editors) when an archetype is under review that fits with their expertise. This of course is not necessarily very precise, but gives a good overview of what the reviewer community for this archetype was. Therefore, the best way to make sure you won't be missed is to adopt the archetype - this means that you are clearly stating that you have some ownership of this archetype and want to be involved in the review for this particular archetype. > At its current stage, archetype approval process in CKM seems to be > similar to 'design by committee' standards approval process. I don't think that this is true at all. But I would be very interested to know where you think the CKM process should be improved. Cheers Sebastian > 2011/9/8 Ian McNicoll<Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com>: >> Hi Diego, >> >> I'll answer your last question first, as it is easier. >> >> Commenting on and reviewing an archetype is generally fairly >> straightforward and can be done by very many clinicians without a >> detailed understanding of openEHR or informatics. >> >> In contrast, editing high-quality, universal archetypes is a fairly >> time-consuming and specialised activity. >> >> As editors we have to.. >> >> 1. Author the original archetypes or source them from elsewhere, >> taking into account other international standards such as HL7 >> 2. Do research around real-world electronic documentation practice of >> the concept in question. >> 3. Understand current clinical best-practice in the area. >> 4. Understand ongoing informatics discussion as they apply to the >> concept e.g on the role of terminology or how best to handle allergy >> recordings. >> 5. Set up review rounds, collate the results, contact specific users >> for clarification or discussion >> 6. Make judgements about how best to reflect the review comments in >> the archetype design, which does require a pretty good feel for >> archetype best practice, and then feed back this to the review >> community. >> 7. Make sure that the archetypes are technically correct and, of >> course, adherent to the versioning rules. >> >> There is a great deal of word-smithing and communication with >> reviewers and other domain experts. >> >> We will not need a huge number of people with these skills but they >> will need protected and resourced time. The NEHTA CKM is a good >> example of the kind of editorial input required at national and >> international level. Of course, over time, this will reduce as more >> published archetypes become available. >> >> Ian >> >> Dr Ian McNicoll >> office +44 (0)1536 414 994 >> fax +44 (0)1536 516317 >> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 >> skype ianmcnicoll >> ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com >> >> Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK >> openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge >> Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL >> BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org >> >>
