There are many different requirements for workflow and processes for people developing maps depending on their business situation.
A wide variety of different team sizes, management styles and business processes are in use and so Snap2SNOMED has been designed to provide workflow support for collaborative authoring and reviewing tasks when developing a map while remaining flexible enough to support as many different workflows as possible.
Snap2SNOMED supports the requirements of managing a variety of different workflows. Depending on business requirements and availability of personnel, a project owner can assign different roles to users to achieve different levels of control.
Participants can have one of three roles within a project:
Owner
An owner has full permissions within a project. They are able to completely manage project membership and project workflow. A project must have at least one owner.
Some example scenarios
Full control of owner
1 user (owner) controlling membership
2+
Project owner wishes to direct the workflow of all author and review work and specify who does what and in what order.Project owner wants to have full control of project membership
Project owner can assign all participants in the project as "Guests".
Project owner can then create tasks and assign them to each "Guest" as required to complete the work"Guests" cannot self-select work, but need to be assigned tasks by the owner
High level of control of owner
1 user (owner) controlling membership
2+
Project owner wishes to allow some users to self-select and complete work, but direct work specifically to other usersProject owner wants to have full control of project membership
Project owner can assign some participants as "Members" and some users as "Guests"
"Members" are able to self-select work"Guests" cannot self-select work, but need to be assigned tasks by the owner
Moderate level of control of owner
1 user (owner) controlling membership
2+
Project owner wishes all users to self-select and complete workProject owner wants to have full control of project membership
Project owner can assign all participants as "Members"
"Members" are able to self-select work
Low level of control of owner
1 user (owner) controlling memberships
2+
Project owner wishes all users to self-select and complete workProject owner wants assistance in controlling of project membership
Project owner can assign some participants as "Owners" and some users as "Members"
"Owners" are able to self-select work and manage membership to project"Members" are able to self-select work
Low level of control of owner
Multiple users (owners) controlling memberships
2+
Project owner wishes all users to self-select and complete work and to allow other participants to manage membership
Project owner can assign all participants as "Owners"
"Owners" are able to self-select work and manage membership to project
Low level of control of owner
Multiple users (owners) controlling memberships
2+
Project owner wishes to allow some users to self-select and complete work, but direct work specifically to other usersProject owner wants assistance in controlling of project membership
Project owner can assign some participants as "Owners", some users as "Members", and some users as "Guests"
"Owners" are able to self-select work and manage membership to project. They can also create tasks and assign them to other users"Members" are able to self-select work"Guests" cannot self-select work, but need to be assigned tasks by the owner
Moderate level of control of owner
Multiple users (owners) controlling membership
Member
A member has some permissions within a project. They are able to manage their own workflow within a project
Guest
A guest has limited permissions within a project. They have read access to the project and are unable to manage any workflow. They can only complete tasks that are assigned to them by the owner(s)
1
Single user project
By default, a single user project has one owner. No other settings are required
The "Owner" is able to self-select work and manage membership to project
Snap2SNOMED is designed for collaborative map development. When creating a map, the user decides between two overall workflows, namely:
Single author mode
Dual author mode
Each of these overall approaches supports a range of options for collaboratively developing a map from a given source code set to SNOMED CT.
This overall approach supports multiple users working simultaneously on a map in a single author, single reviewer per source code manner. This means that work can be divided across a number of personnel to get work done.
A variety of workflows are currently supported, including:
A single user completes all author tasks for the map and then completes a review process on all mapped rows
A single user completes all author tasks for the map.
No review process is required
A single author completes all author tasks for the map.
A second user, the reviewer, will complete a review process on all mapped rows.
Two or more authors create mappings for each source code of the map.
Two or more reviewers completes the review processes on all mapped rows.
NOTE: A user can act as both an author and reviewer within the overall map (as assigned in a task), however, rules have been implemented to discourage the scenario of a user to reviewing their own authoring work. This can be overridden by an owner if required.
Dual author mode allows two authors to independently map the same source codes. Conflicts arising from differing interpretations are identified and resolved through a reconciliation process. This workflow brings the advantage of diverse perspectives, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of mappings. It ensures a cross-validation process where conflicting interpretations can be discussed, resolved, and reconciled, leading to accurate and reliable mappings between different coding systems or terminologies.
A variety of workflows are currently supported, including:
Two users user completes all author tasks for the map.
A reconciler completes the reconciliation of conflicting maps.
An assigned reviewer completes the review of all map rows.
Two users user completes all author tasks for the map.
A reconciler completes the reconciliation of conflicting maps.
One or more users are assigned as reviewers for a specific set of source codes. Each map row is assigned to a single reviewer.
Two or more users complete the author tasks that have been assigned to them. The work is divided so that two users are mapping each source code.
One or more users are assigned as a reconciler. Each map row is assigned to one reconciler.
One or more users are assigned as reviewers for a specific set of source codes. Each map row is assigned to a single reviewer.
Two users complete all author tasks for the map.
A reconciler completes the reconciliation of conflicting maps.
No review process is required.
In Dual Author Mode, two independent mappers work separately on the same mapping task. The system keeps their mappings blinded until both have completed their work. Once both mappers submit their mappings, the system compares the results:
If both mappers select the same target, the row is marked as MAPPED and requires no further action.
If the mappers select different targets, the row automatically moves to RECONCILE, where a reconciler will review and determine the final mapping.
Key Considerations for Reviewing in Dual Author Mode
No Dedicated Reviewer Role: Unlike Single Author Mode, this mode does not require a separate reviewer because the reconciliation process ensures that discrepancies are addressed.
Modifying a Locked Mapping: Once a mapping is unblinded, it cannot be changed by either author. However, if adjustments are necessary, the status can be changed to RECONCILE using bulk change, or the Clear Targets option can be applied via bulk edit to reset the mapping and the blinding flag.
Handling Rejected Rows: If a reviewer (in an assigned review workflow) rejects a row, its status can be changed to RECONCILE using the bulk change feature. A reconciliation task can then be assigned to ensure the mapping is corrected.
Depending on personnel resourcing availability and internal business requirements, there are different ways to set the author/review workflow.
Series
Authoring is completed before review is started. Once review is complete, an author can then pick up any rows that have been identified as problematic and then the author/reviewing cycle continues. This may be useful when time is not an issue. Doing it this way may make it easier to ensure consistency as reviewing can be completed when looking at the map as a whole (as well as individual map rows). As work is not done in parallel, this method can be more time consuming.
Authoring tasks are created
Once all rows in the source code set have been mapped and all authoring tasks completed, review tasks are created
Review tasks are completed
Note: there is currently no notification system available to notify users that work has been done or comments have been left. Manual monitoring needs to be done to keep track of workflow by users within a project.
Snap2SNOMED supports maintenance of maps that have been created within the tool and also allows upload of simple maps in a defined format for maintenance.
Maintenance is supported through the following workflows
Create new version of an existing map, update source scope (code system), target scope (code system) and migrate existing map rows
A new version of an existing map in the tool can be created through the project list by selecting the version to be copied and then creating a new version.
For map rows that are copied, the tool will migrate
source
target
New review tasks are created containing those newly mapped/updated rows and assigned to user(s) to review
Steps 4-5 repeated until all rows are approved
Note: Once an author task is completed, if rows have been rejected by a reviewer, then a new author task needs to be created.
Parallel
While authoring is being completed, review is occurring simultaneously.
This may be useful when time efficiency is required as processes can occur in parallel. It may also be useful where you do not have dedicated team members who can only spend shorter periods of time working on map development. It may be more difficult to maintain consistency, so clear, updated documentation and communication on mapping rules between team members is important.
Authoring tasks are created
As authoring begins review can begin. Review tasks can be created assigned
At the beginning containing all rows - users can check their review tasks periodically and review rows belonging to the task that are in the appropriate state (MAPPED), returning back and checking again until complete; OR
as required, filtering map rows that are ready to be reviewed (in a MAPPED state) to create a review task. This can be done periodically until all reviews are complete.
As reviews are being completed and there are any REJECTED rows that
belong to an active author tasks, the assigned author can update as required
do not belong to an active author task (as it has been completed or cancelled), then these can be filtered and assigned to a user(s) to author/update
This process is continued until all rows are approved
Hybrid
Mix of series and parallel workflows can be used. This can be a combination of completing authoring prior to review, and having some tasks open and close as resources such as specialised reviewers become available.
A hybrid approach would require close management by the map owner to ensure all work is completed.
This may be useful when you have a varying team with different resourcing availabilities. It may be more difficult to maintain consistency, so clear, updated documentation and communication on mapping rules between team members is important.
In the example flow shown, User 1 and User 4 can be the same person, ideally only reviewing the work of User 1+2.
Tips on using tasks
Source codes can only be assigned to one task of each type at a time, however, they can be assigned to both an author and a review task at the same time. This means that a source code needs to be released (task completed or cancelled) before it can be assigned to another task of the same type.
You can use tasks to group together similar content to ensure that users are looking at similar things at the same time and improve the efficiency and consistency of mappings.
relationship
status (e.g. DRAFT, MAPPED, ACCEPTED, etc.)
last author/reviewer data
Identify changes in map due to change in source scope
Removed or retired codes in the source
tool will remove the rows from the map
New codes in the source
tool will create rows for the new source codes, with an empty target
Owners or members can filter empty target fields to create a task to complete mapping process
Identify changes in map due to change in target scope
Out of scope or retired codes in the target
Owners can use VALIDATE function in tool to identify out of scope codes
Owners or members can filter identified rows to create a task to update map targets and complete mapping process
New target codes in code system
Owners or members can filter relationship type for any type except for equivalent to create a task to review and update map targets and complete mapping process
Upload existing map
An existing map can be uploaded into the tool to then be updated.
