Page Comparison

• Review project outline

• SM-What has worked well?

• JS- Too early to tell

• MM-Confluence has worked fine so far

• KR-Group is still gaining momentum

Business Use Case Analysis

• Who are the buyers

• What is the price

• Business Trends

• ROI

• Spans the communities and holistic around all of BPM+

Statement of Value

• What is the benefits

• What are the key value statements for different action and communications

• Target Audience: Arriving toward and organization that wants to do authoring of clinical pathways

• Differentiate between those that want to do authoring verse those that are trying to consume authored artifacts

Out of Scope of Authoring Work group

• Why an institution would want to adopt or institute shareable pathways

• Bill: Are there studies about how pathways are instituted and used, and the implications of that. (ref: Look at oncology Pathways)

Examples:

Clinical Pathways: Reducing Costs and Improving Quality Across a Network

Impact of Electronically Accessible Pathways on Clinical Trial Enrollment at a Large Multisite Cancer Center

Work What Success looks like? (6-12 mos)

• Why would someone want to be involved

• What is the path-How do I start, and what does the path look like?

• Best practices-how do I do this well ? What has been learned?

• What guidance should I follow?

• Why should I want to be an author involved in BPM+?

• “How does one take a 100+page PDF guideline and make it into a machine readable model that could be ingested into a system.” Taking the story, approach, tips, tricks, etc. so that other can do this. Either de novo or adapting existing content. This is authoring.

  • New clinical societies

  • Healthcare delivery orgs

  • Etc.

• Why would an organization choose this ?

• If we make the decision, how do we make it so?

• What does “doing it well” looks like: (e.g. Maturity Model, etc.)

The Product Vision Board

Work Products to do this

• Artifact: Criteria Set/Guide ( ?)

  • Purpose: Define what a well authored model looks like

  • Audience: Person or org stepping up and establishing an authoring capability

    • As a Technologies: Defines what a well authored model looks like

    • As a Functional: Shows what a well authored model looks like

    • Business: secondary reference

  • Contents:

    • Investments that would need to be made (e.g Tooling, training

    • How to address variability and drive towards consistency (e.g., glossaries, patterns, standardized nomenclature, terminology) ; recognize and applying patterns

    • Snapshot of good authoring practices, approaches. Best practices, characteristics, etc. Potential maturity model to advance organizational capacity to develop pathways.

    • Quality criteria-what represents a good authored artifacts.

    • Dealing with settings, variances, local adaptation/configuration

    • Access to functional expertise

Work Products to do this

What is the artifact: Value Proposition for Authoring Organizations

• What is the purpose

  • Explain why formal authoring is valuable

  • Helping advance usability of EHRs: role in improving efficacy of EHR

  • Marrying CPGs into clinical practice congruent to clinical workflow;

  • Making these more consumable and implementable

• Who is its audience:

  • As a Technologies: Clinical embeds supporting technology companies

  • As a Functional: Full spectrum clinical community, those building guidelines or maintaining them;

  • Business: secondary reference

  • Adopting organization: rationalize the art of the possible; value of direct consumption of guidelines.

  • Specialty Societies: Authoritative creators or stewards of content.

  • Payers:

• Contents:

  • Mission

  • Specific Purpose

  • “Customers”

  • Problem being solved

  • Unique value proposition

  • Case Studies/Exemplars

Action items:

• Review and integrate business case outline with the new artifacts

• Linda Chan to set up 2 sub meetings

  • Shane McNamee, Mike Cesino, Pawan Goyal

  • Criteria-Mike Meir/John Svirbely