© 2011 health level seven ® international. all rights reserved. hl7 and health level seven are...

© 2011 Health Level Seven ® International. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven International. Reg. U.S. TM Office.

HL7 Peer Review Process

Brought to you by

Project Services

Refer to slide notes for [footnote references] and additional info


Peer Review- Introduction Merriam-Webster defines Peer

Review as a process by which something

proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field [1]

Peer Reviews are used in many settings, particularly academic and professional settings, with the first known Peer Review dating back to 1665 [2]

Peer Review allows more ‘eyes’ on an artifact being developed


How Peer Reviews are used in HL7

Used for Governance and Operations Manual (GOM) maintenance (see GOM §17.03.01)

Work Groups have used to mature content, resulting in ballot passage in one cycle

May be used to provide input on new HL7 processes, as defined in “Introducing New Processes to HL7”[3]


HL7 Peer Review [4]

The purpose of the peer review is to encourage a more complete review without going through the rigor of the ballot process

The review may also cover "partial" or incomplete artifacts

Peer Reviews may be scheduled outside the ballot review schedule to avoid “ballot fatigue”

Peer Reviews may be used by groups [5] to solicit input and perform quality assurance


Peer Review Steps (by role)

Sponsor Group1. Prepare artifact(s)

2. Plan logistics

5. Review Comments

6. Complete Peer Review

Reviewers

3. Prepare comments

4. Submit comments


Step 1 - Prepare Artifact(s)

An artifact is produced to a level that is deemed to be "as complete as possible without review" or ready for review outside the sponsor group, for example:

A task force group solicits input from the sponsor group

A sponsor group solicits input from other groups for specific project artifact deliverables

A group solicits input from membership, or selected “target audience”, on a new process


Step 2 - Plan logistics

Upon agreement from the sponsor group the author distributes the artifact, announcement, and comment instructions:

The announcement must include the review timeline and instructions to submit comments.

The author may schedule a Question & Answer (Q&A) meeting to walk through the artifact or otherwise assist reviewers; include info in the announcement.

Multiple options for the peer review comment collection are available, supporting “Simple” or “In Depth” review.[6]


Step 3 - Prepare comments

Reviewers go through the artifact identifying issues and concerns:

Multiple formats have been defined to collect comments, with differing degree of formality The peer review form may be similar to a

ballot comment spreadsheet, but with less information collected

Comments may be collected on a wiki page


Step 4 - Submit comments

Reviewers submit their peer review comments as directed in the announcement:

Comments must be submitted by the deadline established by the sponsor group.

Tip: Sponsor Group may want to remind reviewers of

the impending deadline.


Step 5 - Review Comments

Peer Review comments are reviewed: Focus on improving the content of the artifact being

reviewed, not dispositioning comments Review approach may be “Simple” or “In Depth”

Simple - mark all items “Reviewed”; it is not necessary to categorize further

In Depth - identifying disposition for each line item (similar to ballot dispositions)

Review may be by a single individual, or task group, or other designee formed by the sponsor group


Step 6 – Complete Peer ReviewSimple: Apply comments to the

artifact and determine publication for the next version: Schedule the content for

another peer review, possibly widening the targeted reviewers

Submit for ballot with concurrence of the sponsor group and appropriate project approvals

In Depth: Schedule a call to

walkthrough the comments (sponsor group and/or reviewers)

Confirm resolutions, answer questions, identify rationale for rejections

Disposition each line item Determine next step, e.g.

subsequent peer review or ballot


Peer Review Options Peer Review forms are available at:http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/psc/docman/?subdir=340 Formats have been developed by:

Process Improvement Committee (PIC) Less formal word document, recommended for “Simple”

reviews Project Services (PS)

Adapted from the ballot comment spreadsheet with input from the Service Aware Interoperability Framework (SAIF) Architecture Program (AP), suitable for either “Simple” or “In Depth” reviews

Architecture Review board (ArB) Excel spreadsheet with minimal disposition categories;

recommended for “In Depth” reviews


Peer Review Form – PICDeveloped by PIC


Peer Review Form – Project Services Developed by Project Services/SAIF AP

This form is adapted from the Ballot Comment Spreadsheet


Peer Review Form – Project Services, cont.

This form is adapted from the Ballot Comment Spreadsheet, but simplified to remove ballot specific content

Simple reviews may set all dispositions to “Reviewed”


Peer Review Form – ARBDeveloped by ARB


Comments or Questions?

Please forward comments or questions to the Project Services Co-Chairs

Contact information available at: http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/

projectServices/leadership.cfm

© 2011 health level seven ® international. all rights reserved. hl7 and health level seven are...

Documents

hl7 peer review process

hl7 slide

peer review steps

known peer review

review comments

complete review

complete peer review

tm office