Hi Diego, No worries. This is good, robust discussion!! Nothing is/was taken personally :-)
I like the suggestion about inviting adoptions for new archetypes from those with specialist interests, although it can actually be pretty difficult to delineate these, as very many archetypes have a very broad possible interest group, or indeed no specialist interest group. We are aware of this when 'labelling' each archetype as relevant to a particular speciality - where does 'Blood pressure' sit, or 'pulse oximetry' ? Does Pregnancy summary only apply to obstetricians and midwives? Do people want to be bombarded with CKM spam, inviting them to adopt every new archetype? I think we would all agree with your summary: "summarizing: very few people (elected by other editors?), with no timelines..." and I will encourage the new Board to make this a priority to resolve. As ever, it is largely about resource. 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 On 9 September 2011 12:01, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote: > First, I want to be clear in one thing: this kind of opinions are not > against the editors themselves, which I think they are doing a huge > work for the community. I appreciate them and they work, and I know > they are very busy people (you just have to follow any of them on > twitter) ;) > comments inline: > > 2011/9/9 Sebastian Garde <sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com>: >> >> >> 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. > > I know that part, and I hope editors can access that kind of > information. When I said put them as editors I was thinking more in > contacting them and offer them to be the lead editors of that > archetype. I can see how people can miss archetypes they would want to > review or be editors just for not knowing it has started. Maybe is > just a silly idea, but what about tagging the archetypes with > expertise areas and launch a notification to all the people registered > in that area when an archetype has been created for the first time (so > they can adopt it). > And as you said, adopting makes you a reviewer, not an editor :) > > >>> 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. > > summarizing: very few people (elected by other editors?), with no timelines... > > will expand this on the response to Ian post > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >
