Page History

• Ian had issued individual spreadsheets to Kathy and Susan and they had done next 25+ of diagnose and returned to Ian. Now entered in shared google sheet.

• Not taking into account translation at this point, focusing on meaning - though recognised that translation issues may feed in to meaning clarification
• Whilst we are not producing a map, only the Refset, a map will be needed to support those currently using ICNP to migrate and for historical purposes.
• There are concepts which are fundamentally different, e.g. Adherence v compliance. These will need to be fully discussed and reach consensus on - cannot be shelved for later.

Agreed the following outline process:

• Reviewers to work on 50 items per week (next batch by 24 July)
• Ian to issue the 50 items to each reviewer in separate files - beginning of week
• Reviewers provide expert decisions - close of play Friday same week
• Ian to pull together into shared sheet - following Monday
• Review results - following tuesday:
  • Where both reviewers agree on a match (Y,Y) - accepted, no further discussion
  • Where reviewers do not agree - meet to discuss and try to reach consensus, fully document.
  • Where reviewers cannot reach consensus, discussed by wider group
  • No match - potential addition. Nick to review and provide further explanation of ICNP concept.
  • No matches + Nick's information provided to Cathy to review and decide on next steps

•  Jane to document process separately
•  Ian provide addition column for reviewers consensus view
•  Ian to issue next batch 50 17 July
•  Ian identify process for providing Nick with list of no matches and then information across to Cathy

• Reviewers to meet to deal with the concepts they do not agree on - initially weekly. Jane/Ian to attend
• Project Group to meet again when there is work to discuss and to discuss approach and progress

•  Jane to set up weekly call for reviewers to reach consensus