Hi Heath and Peter Peter Gummer wrote: > Heath Frankel wrote: > >> I strongly believe that we need to have a >> technical review process of archetypes before they are published. ... >> >> Please understand that I not trying to re-empower the technician, I am >> simply looking for good quality knowledge artefacts and believe this a >> process that is missing in the current archetype development process. >> I agree. Technical input is essential. We have the validation report in CKM and this captures some errors, but many of the issues Heath mentioned require a manual review of the archetype. > I think it behoves us tech-heads to get involved. I (and others) have > been invited six months ago to help the CKM publishing process by > "adopting an archetype". > It would be very good to have a couple of technicians on there. Adopting is a good means for individual archetypes and as a rule everybody who adopts an archetype in CKM will always be invited to review the archetype. For consistency etc, I believe it would be even more benefitial if we have more or less the same couple of technical reviewers for each archetype.
I am not sure if this should be a totally separate process from the clinical review process or part of it. If it is one process, it makes the handling of it a lot easier and more streamlined, but on the other hand you wouldn't want too many technical comments as part of the clinical review process and technicians may not be satisfied with the more clinically oriented view of the archetype presented during the review. I think we should test drive adding some volunteer technicians to the review round of an archetype that is currently under review and see how we go with this. Cheers Sebastian
