We will have a read and comment back this week but i am sure it is fine
What other documents should Porism review?
I think it is wait now until we have completed deliverables by Friday 19th. If you can then have a read of them then we will tidy things up for final delivery on Wednesday 24th March
Has Ian chased Matthew Pike / Dominic Jones?
Dom has moved on, not heard back from Matthew. Got a response from Nick Parker who asked Toby to speak with us. Hoping he will soon.
Where are we against the deliverables promised? Do the deliverables promised by Digital Gaps match those in the ITT? If not, do we care about the ITT? Just what DG promised which is in line with ITT and PID
Raising of any issues
Imin concerns and interviewing them (Nish and Nick)
Is there ODI guidance/policy on what is centrally/publicly funded and what is left to the commercial sector?
Mike has lots of questions for Tim Hill
We need a commentary on the field mapping don’t we? Yes
Do we need Nicki to look at mappings from LGSL to the Activity list? Nicki to do high level review initially
Questions on next weeks next steps
How would OA accommodate new fields to provide more information for SP?
Meeting notes
Included against about points
22nd Feb 2021 - Notes
Mike asked a question on the role of the ODI and where do they start and stop with standards & innovations. Tim - What is the scope of the innovators - no policy to define. The ODI role is to own the standards, and let other people creating and own the tooling. However that failed, due poor third party implementation and technical stack. There is no real competition to tooling and puts the whole OpenActive data at risk. No issue with commercial, but only having 1 tool to supply the market is risky to the whole project. ODI would be happy to have more suppliers providing tooling.
Key issue is the dichotomy between publicly funded infrastructure taken from say public health vs a commercial infastruce model. This is currently a wider agenda within Central Government and Sport England.
Potential standard recommendations
Last updated fields - OR assurance equivalent
SP ready fields - provide more info to understand activity is right one (see slide 4)
Add pathway (Target
15 Feb 2021
Agenda
Questions on or resulting from last week’s progress
will be shared with attendees using MS Excel before end of Sunday 31st Jan. Hopefully this will work easily enough but we will see at 12:30 on Monday ;-) A PDF version will also available in
The following will be taken in order. Questions and issues can be raised in advance (add your name) or at meeting.
It is expected that people will have updated the highlight report by 10am Monday morning.
Questions on or resulting from last week’s progress
(Marcus/Mike) Are we looking at a social prescribing model that pushes scheduled sessions back to the ORUK structure (to be combined with other non-sports opportunities) and uses the OA booking structure for bookings? Step 1 is getting an understanding of what people are looking for . Step 2 to more detail. Step 3 booking
@Ian Singleton
Working on
@Create a initial Concept model for Findable services with bookable events
- Further analysis will be done as project progresses.
(Marcus/Mike) Do we have good knowledge of how current social prescribing software (like Elemental) works? Does it involve booking an actual session or just referring someone to an activity/service that they might attend, do online, eg a home visit etc? Marcus is looking at social prescribing platforms. They differ. More work to come. - See above comment &
(Marcus/Mike) Booking with payment is a big leap from a referral or just advising someone to take a look at a service. Is there a middle course?
@Mike Thacker
We have some thoughts on this, we can talk through. Some apps have booking others don’t. The front line worker fills the gaps, e.g. booking, making sure someone turns up. We aspire to both finding an activity and making a booking. We’re looking at what is a “
@Social-prescribing-ready-session
” This may impact on the data structure.
(Mike) How are we approaching use and misuse of terms from multiple of taxonomies? Do we need mappings and/or a superset? London Sport / UK Active mapping between activity types and conditions?
to add their research outcomes. Can also speak to Matthew from NHS Connect. London Sport have good accessibility data.
Activity types align with Services. Conditions align with Circumstances. We go from summary to detail eg Indoor Sports to Activity List. Map Snomed to these lists. Accessibility is the third. Different people have different specialist lists. LGA lists form high level
@Anchor points
- add Accessibility. Try to test this with OpenCommunity people. Tagging in Activity list eg might be useful, eg for rehabilitation. High level list helps people focus assigning terms to on lower list. High level allows for suggestions of things that people might not have thought of.
work for Sports England on "Strategic Advice and Options Appraisal for the Future of the OpenActive Initiative"? Mike to
@Arrange get together. ODSC
will check with SE.
(Mike) Can Porism
@Create a skeleton technical report
and start to populate? Yes
@Marcus Devaney
to
@Create calendar invites for interviews and workshops
? Can we see the roles of each person being interviewed so Porism can make better informed decisions as to which meetings we should sit in on? Yes. DigitalGaps will show the schedule with each person and role.
Early indications are that NHS and Social prescribing are leaning towards Open referral and a single taxonomy. Open Referral is the international standard