Hi all,
In the Netherlands we are setting up a national CKM under the coordination of Nictiz, with a pilot starting in January 2027. Modelling will be done in a federated way: regional programmes, vendors and national programmes build archetypes, templates and mappings in their own projects. Nictiz coordinates between these projects and the international community, and decides what becomes the national standard.
While preparing the governance, we looked closely at how the international CKM works. As @siljelb described in an earlier thread, the international process works as a do-ocracy. There are no predefined requirements for the size or composition of the reviewer group per archetype.
That has clearly worked well for building a high-quality international library. For a national CKM, however, we need a more formal basis. When an archetype becomes part of a national standard, vendors and care organisations need to trust that the decision was made in a transparent and repeatable way. That is why we want to work towards a mandate model with two components.
1. Predefined requirements for the review group per archetype
As a starting point for discussion, we are thinking of requirements such as:
- a minimum number of reviewers who actually complete the review (for example 5);
- a minimum number of clinicians from the relevant domain (for example 3);
- reviewers from at least two different organisations or regions, so a model is not validated only by the party that built it;
- at least one health informatician / modeller;
- at least one implementer or vendor, to check technical feasibility;
- a terminology expert when terminology bindings are part of the archetype.
2. A rule set an archetype must meet before it may enter review
A kind of “definition of ready”, for example:
- the CKM, including incubators, has been searched and no existing archetype covers the concept;
- English is the original language, with a Dutch translation;
- the archetype follows the existing design patterns and the editorial style guide;
- metadata is complete: purpose, use, misuse, keywords and references;
- the clinical use case and rationale are described;
- terminology bindings, where present, have been checked;
- there is no unresolved overlap with other archetypes in review or development.
Our questions to the community
- Are the requirements of the Norwegian National Editorial Board documented somewhere in a form that others can reuse? @siljelb, would you be willing to share them?
- Are there other national CKMs (UK, Slovenia, Australia, Spain, Germany, others) that have formalised reviewer requirements or entry criteria? We would rather align than invent our own.
- Are there pitfalls we should avoid? For example, review rounds stalling because the reviewer threshold is never reached.
Kind regards,
Igor Schoonbrood
On behalf of the Dutch national CKM pilot (Nictiz)