5.3.4 Mapping and review approach

In this approach, each source row is authored by a single author with no review process.

This approach could have a single user completing all source rows, or the source rows shared across multiple users.

This may be suitable for very small teams for maps that are not intended for clinical use and have very low clinical risk.

In this approach each source row is authored by a single author and reviewed by a single reviewer.

This approach could have a single user completing authoring or reviewing of all source rows, or the source rows shared across multiple users.

Example scenarios:

One user authors maps for each source code, one user reviews all maps

A group of users authors maps for each source code, another group of users reviews all maps

A group of users are responsible for both authoring and reviewing all maps, each user authors maps and also reviews other users' maps.

In a really small team, an author and reviewer may be the same person. However this is not ideal, and it is highly recommended to include two or more people in the map development process.

These approaches may be suitable if there is sufficient resources and there is appropriate personnel to complete a review to mitigate clinical risk, however independent author/review processes is considered gold standard  and should be considered if there is clinical risk and resources allow.

In this approach each source row is independently authored by two or more authors. This approach could have users each authoring all source codes or shared across multiple users.

After authoring, mappings are compared. Where there is conflict between the authors, then 

a) the authors can work together to solve the conflict and come to an agreement. There may be need for an external adjudicator when agreement cannot be reached.

b) an independent adjudicator can act to review and resolve conflicts.

This approach can produce higher quality maps, because each author is independently cross-checking each other's material without being biased by the decisions of the other author. As adjudication is only required where there is conflict, this approach can be quicker than completing a full review.

Validation workshops is workshops dedicated to review and validate the design and/or content of a reference set. In these workshops the content or uncertainties are discussed in details, or test-persons are asked to prioritize and assess specific subset members etc. The participants may have had a chance to review the reference set individually prior to the workshop to prepare questions and comments for discussion. The number of people in the workshop and their roles should be considered and selected dependent of the format and the scope of a specific workshop.

This approach is time consuming which should be acknowledged already in the planning stage. However, this approach may also be rewarding. Workshops often give rise to detailed discussions or unplanned discussions of relevant issues, but at the sametime workshops provide an opportunity of increased ownership and participation among the participants, which may have a positive effect on the adoption of the reference set. It is recommended to plan these workshops in detail and to include a set of workshops. The number of workshops necessary depends on the size of the reference set, and how the feedback sharing is conducted.

Single author, dual (or multi) independent review

Dual (or multi) independent author with single reviewer

Dual independent author with dual independent review