HL7 Learning Partner Sub-Group

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 13:09, 22 February 2014 by Rene spronk (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is related to discussions of the "HL7 Learning Partner Program". See Education Home Page for general issues related to the provision of HL7 Education.

  • Group members: Rene Spronk, Melva Peters, Mark McDougall, Sharon Chaplock, Heather Grain
  • Planning: Will need to address all of the issues (as documented below); Will need a position statement (by the education WG); Proposal to be ready for May 2014 WGM

HL7 Learning Partner Program

Initial Proposal - DRAFT ONLY

File:HL7 Learning Partner Program draft2.docx

Issues/Concerns

Issues/Concerns

  1. HL7 International not wishing to compete with Affiliates
    • The Learning Partner proposal is based on the assumption that the following (or something like it) would be agreed upon between the HL7 affiliates and HL7 International in order to clarify the roles of the Affiliates and HL7 International when it comes to educational offerings:
      • All HL7 affiliates have the right to organize education offerings within their own territory in a manner that they deem suitable for their members and territorial context, provided IP and other issues (as per the existing affiliate agreement) are handled as agreed upon.
      • Should HL7 International receive a request to provide education, and such education is to be delivered within the territory of one of the HL7 affiliates, then the affiliate associated with the territory in question will have the ‘right of the first refusal’:
        • HL7 international will seek confirmation that the affiliate is willing and able to arrange for the delivery of the educational offering; should the affiliate either be unwilling or unable to do so, or should the affiliate not respond to the request of HL7 international within a reasonable timeframe (e.g. 5 working days), then HL7 international shall have the right to deliver the requested educational services.
      • Should an HL7 Affiliate receive a request (other than a request from another affiliate) to provide education outside of its own territory, then HL7 International will have the ‘right of the first refusal’:
        • Should HL7 International either be unwilling or unable to deliver the requested educational offerings, or should HL7 International not respond to the request of the affiliate within a reasonable timeframe (e.g. 5 working days), then the affiliate shall have the right to deliver the requested educational services.
  2. What is the qualification of the organizations who provide training? To become a partner and to remain a partner
    • We need to develop core competencies on evaluation of “teachers”
  3. HL7 Code of conduct that precludes endorsement of one member over another
    • Rene: I haven't read that section in years, but the spirit of it is probably to prevent 'nepotism'. What the proposal aims to do is to allow any member to be a learning partner, as long as they fulfill some basic quality criteria. As long as the crteria are open and published, and the accreditation process (in terms of governance) is done in a fair way this shouldn't clash with the code of conduct.
  4. Competition with HL7 International offerings
    • Rene: realistically this could only currently occur in two scenarios: competition in the form of face-to-face training courses within the US (WGM Tutorials, Educational summits), and with the e-learning course. E-learning courses, like webinars, are virtual in nature and as such it would be hard to prevent competition. Will the Learning partner program lead to additional offerings (besides those already available as competing training courses) of face to face training courses in the US? To me it seems near impossible to see a 'causal' relationship..
  5. Dilution of the HL7 brand
  6. Risk of saturation of market with HL7 sanctioned training
  7. Need to understand how this is different from what is happening today
  8. Do we have the time to do the evaluations in a volunteer organization?
    • Rene: if the Learning Partners had to pay an annual fee to be accredited, evaluations of organizations and/or trainers would be a paid effort.
  9. Affiliate agreement just signed and would need to be changed/amended
    • An amendmend may be in order, see above for suggested additional content
  10. There may be an issue for some of the HL7 International teachers in providing training in some countries
    • Rene: exactly that's why one has to widen the number of options by having Learning partners that could provide training in those countries.

Opportunities

  • Is there an opportunity for partners to develop material where we do not have resources/time?

Benefits

  • Formalizes a framework for what we are currently doing
  • Additional revenue
  • Offers an opportunity for management of the HL7 brand

Strategic Education Plan

Extract, in as far as relevant to this Learning Partner Program proposal:

Goal #2 – Expand the reach of HL7’s training to increase the number of people trained and the number of trainers at our disposal worldwide.

Objective 2c: Partner with companies to deliver training

Action Plan

  • Define benefits of partnering with HL7 to deliver training
  • Solicit companies interested in delivering HL7 training
  • Provide training materials for new standards for companies to use
  • Offer “preferred partner” status for companies using HL7 materials who have met our training standards
  • Define criteria and process for achieving “preferred partner” status
  • List “Preferred Trainer” companies on HL7 website
  • Evaluate potential of licensing training materials for distribution to “preferred trainers”

Performance Measures

  • Partnerships established with training companies; Target – X # of partnerships established by EO 2013, 2014, 2015
  • Criteria and process for becoming “Preferred trainer” in place by EO 2013
  • “Preferred trainer” credential offered ; Target – X # of “Preferred trainers” authorized by EO 2014, 2015