TOPIC 3: Distributed Authoring

Assumptions/Questions

• Is this problem only going to be a fleeting problem that goes away after getting over the 'hump'? 

  • Opinion: No ... there are countless clinical specialties that have not yet been modelled. Also, the rate of change in clinical knowledge is increasing, so this will continue to be a scalability challenge.

SNOMED International 

• What is the gateway process to accept content into the International Edition? 

• What training or accreditation should be required by terminology authors who author in the International Edition?

• Is risk shared from SNOMED International to other organizations/groups, if that is even possible?

• Is there an appetite for the crowd sourcing SNOMED CT content or does this break the gold standard/best in breed image of SNOMED CT?

• The bottle neck is the QA capacity of the central team in the current way of working.  Can this be solved by delegating gateway responsibilities to certain groups/certified authors?

• Still concept by concept, or would we move to something similar to a whole task/batch of work?

• What tools or techniques can be put in place to increase the quality of the content being authored outside SNOMED International - for example:

  • Template-based authoring of individual concepts

  • Template-based authoring of descriptions

  • Automated hierarchy creation in reproducible subhierarchies (e.g. drugs)

• Should distributed authors author in an extension module or an international module? After the QA process, should the content stay in the same module or be moved prior to distribution?

• Which module should distributed authors author in, and should the content stay in this module after QA, or move to a specific International Edition module.

  • How does this effect the module structure, MDRS and URI of the International Edition.

• How does Genomics fit in this picture? Will it end up being a key driver?

NRC

• If NRC staff get involved in distributed authoring, there should be no further need to create local content as holders while waiting for the international edition to catch up, but....
  
  

  • how do you prove the use case to include the content? 

  • what training or accreditation will NRC staff require to participate in distributed authoring?

• How would a rapid increase in content in the International Edition effect NRC maintenance processes, including translation processes, refset maintenance processes and history management?

• An increase in the number of modules in the International Edition may increase the overhead in maintaining the MDRS for each national edition (more dependencies).

• What international content and content requests would NRC staff be permitted to author? For example:

  • Only their own content requests on a volunteer basis? 

  • Or content requests from other Members, with associated remuneration (as a service).

Implementors

• like in topic 2, would local organizations get involved in distributed authoring? 

  • What training or accreditation will implementers / clinicians require to participate in distributed authoring?

• Does this extend to refsets or translations?