well, tagging doesn't need to be mandatory, but I think that everyone with an specialized field should be included (or at least, invited) to domain specific archetypes.
2011/9/9 Ian McNicoll <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com>: > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >
