NHS-R Committee Meeting
23 April 2024
Via Teams
Attendees: Zoë Turner (Chair), Bianca O’Mahoney (notes), Thomas Jennet, Pablo León Ródenas, Stewart Loughlin, Anastacia Zharinova, Stuart Howard, Ben Murch, Lynda Howard
Apologies: Ellen Coughlin, Paul Johnson, Neil Bray, Chris Mainey
There were no comments or suggestions for the notes of the meeting on 9 April.
Action: Zoe will publish to GitHub
Number of delegates at 23 April: 24 for Thursday - in person 17 for Friday - in person 5 Thursday - virtual 3 Friday virtual.
There were mixed views about whether to have Friday (day 2) as a whole ‘unconference’ day or whether to include workshops. If the whole day is ‘unconference’ then we will need to cancel Friday virtual tickets. Action: Bianca to obtain quote for streaming and recording on both days.
Booking is slow but steady; we will need to advertise more fully, particularly after the HACA conference. Action: Bianca to change card colour on website Action: Bianca to circulate the email signature on Slack and ask people to promote.
If our AV requirement is reduced, there will be some excess funds available. This could open an opportunity to set up a Conference Support Fund to help delegates pay for travel. We will need to put together a criteria and policy of how this would work.
Action: Bianca to ascertain how this works for HACA and work on a first draft criteria and policy. Action: Bianca to add to agenda for next meeting.
Chris Mainey is taking the lead on NHS-R / Python presentations for HACA with an aim to publicise open-source coding and RAP principles to a wider NHS analytical audience.
The previous scheme had lots of different titles and was based on the work done for the Community. However, the different titles could be confusing and indistinct. All agreed that it would be good to acknowledge the work and contribution made by individuals. Exactly how to do this will require careful consideration.
In discussion, the following points were raised:
We should consider just one title of Fellow.
Difficult to ascertain whether based on quality of quantity of work done.
Should the title be reviewed annually or awarded once?
Difficult to define what constitutes involvement and who decides.
Some people do a lot of work behind the scenes and may not receive recognition.
Not everyone has the time or opportunity to contribute.
Some sort of accreditation is always well received and can be a way of managers
recognises what their team member is doing.
Action: Zoë to look at adding a ‘how to get involved’ link on the website and
add a draft process to Slack and GitHub to ascertain what people would want
Fellowship to look like.
Thanks goes to Pablo for his work on the scoring criteria.
Action: Bianca to share Pablo email to all
In discussion the following points were made:
Even though the submissions are anonymised, it can still be possible to be aware
whose submission you are marking.
Difficult to score on whether reproducible.
Would HACA scoring system work?
Needs to be inspirational.
We should do a first sift and then group together.
We will discuss copyright issues at the next meeting.
Action: Bianca to add to agenda
There was no other business for discussion.