...
Please provide feedback on the 2022 work plan. Feedback due by November 12th.
...
| Date | Requested action | Requester(s) | Response required by: | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please provide feedback on the CMAG 2022 Work Plan | Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments. |
...
| Country | Date | Response |
|---|---|---|
| USA | 20OCT2021 | The 2022 workplan is appropriate to the functioning of the CMAG group. It is intentionally generic and will be updated as specific issues arise. |
| Sweden | 21OCT2021 | The 2022 workplan looks good. |
| DenmakrDenmark | 20211021 | Agree. |
| Canada | 20211021 | No edits to propose. |
| Australia | 20211101 | Nothing to add. |
| UK |
| No suggestions for a change |
| Ireland | Nov 28 2021 | The workplan looks good, however for item 1 Provision of national perspectives on current SNOMED CT content projects and topics, does this mean perspective from NRC's on work happening at national level or the impact SI content may have on NRC's ? Otherwise looks good. |
| New Zealand | 20211130 | The workplan looks good but turn around timeframes for advice to editorial board can be too tight- can we have a minimum to ensure we have time to investigate and contact subject matter experts and collate the feedback? |
| Belgium | 20220110 | I agree. Member countries without a CMAG rep |
CMAG response
| Date | CMAG Response | Next steps |
|---|---|---|
...