Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Benefit Assessment

 

ExplanationsHighMediumLowScore

Clinical Impact:

This criteria considers the priority for a clinical perspective.

Note where there is an error in content with significant clinical implications the issue should be given an overall high priority regardless of the the values scored for User Impact and Terminology Impact.

  • Health priority areas
    • International/national e.g. obesity, diabetes, heart disease
  • Impact on patient
    • Example: The correctness of content relating to administration of anaesthesia may have a greater impact on the patient than ensuring the correctness of content relating to care of a cast.
    • Patient safety: Where errors in the terminology could lead to erroneous clinical decision support


321 

User Impact

This criteria considers the priority for a user perspective.

Areas to consider:

  • Number of request submissions blocked:
    • Less than 20 = 1
    • Less than 50 = 2
    • More than 50 = 3
    • Note: New content tracker issues would not usually be seen as blocking request submissions as the links are created as the requests arise. Consideration may be given to checking in the CRS to see how many requests on the topic have been submitted over time.
  • Implementations: estimated using the SNOMED in action site. Perhaps one point per country to a maximum of 3.
  • The Member Forum information provided as the basis for development of the priorities. This excludes areas that have been identified as the MF Priorities as tracker items in scope of a MF priority would be considered under that work plan item.
  • Content tracker issues that impact secondary use e.g. the change to an attribute.
321 

Terminology Impact:

This criteria considers the priority in relation to the extent of content that is impacted (or requires change).

High:

  • High level concept
  • Referenced in a large number of concept definitions
  • Referenced by highly used content
  • Attribute that is frequently used
  • Concept model change that would support defining of a significant number of concepts.

Low:

  • Issue relates to a contained sub hierarchy
  • Less than 50 concepts impacted
  • Leaf node area of content
321 
  Average score (a+b+c)/3 

Resource Requirement Assessment

  • Focuses on inception and elaboration phase of development only
    • Work in the elaboration phase involves estimating resources for the construction phase and transition phases.
ExplanationHigh

Medium

 

LowScore

Complexity

  • Complexity of the issue being analysed
  • Number of concepts requiring analysis
  • Very complex issues = 3
    • Examples:
  • Moderate complexity = 2
    • Examples:
  • Simple issues = 1
    • Examples:
321 

Time required

  • Based on effort by one individual working full time.

 

> 4 weeks of effort = 3

2 - 4 weeks of effort = 2

< 2 weeks of effort = 1

321 

External input

  • Consultation with subject matter experts
  • Stakeholder engagement.
  • The stakeholder engagement documentation should be considered when determining this.
  • Active or moderate to extensive consultation required = 3
    • Examples:
      • Meetings with stakeholders
      • Consultation with SIG's or Advisory Groups
      • Ongoing input
  • Indirect or small amount of consultation required = 2
    • Examples:
      • Email exchange
      • Single meeting
  • Inform only = 1
321 

Tooling change

  • Machine Readable Concept Model
  • Description Logic
  • Other tooling change

Complex tooling change anticipated = 3

Simple tooling change anticipated = 2

No tooling change anticipated = 1

321 
  Average score (a+b+c+d)/4 

 

 

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. Hi Cathy,

    I started to update the tracker framework document according to the comments made (yourself on the whole and some from Linda); however, you have forwarded what looks to be an almost complete revision and it would seems easier if you submit that as is.
    It looks really good.
    Cheers