Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


e-Vote Close Date


Date Approved


Work GroupBR&R
Project Insight IDTBD
Work Groups that submitted votes




Clinical Genomics


Emergency Care

Health Care Devices

Learning Health System

Patient Care


Work Groups that did not submit votes



Public Health

  • For each Work Group, choose Affirmative, Negative, Abstain

  • If you are voting for a WG AND are also a co-chair for another WG in the CSD, please include a comment to indicate which WG you are voting on behalf of.

  • Use the  in the comments section to add comments to the vote.

  • Feel free to comment inline on Confluence documents*.

  • Negatives that do NOT have a comment will be considered abstain. Please register your vote below.

PSS: BRIDG 2020 Update

eVote Closes:  

Link to PSS: BRIDG 2020 Update

PBS Metrics: Yellow

Project Approval Request

Choices Your Vote Current Result: (10 Total Votes) Comments
abstain Project Approval Request
2 Votes , 20%
affirmative: Jean Duteau - Pharmacy
affirmative: Please provide what this annual update entails.
affirmative: Too difficult to evaluate without more details
abstain: anesthesia
affirmative Project Approval Request
8 Votes , 80%
negative (with comments only) Project Approval Request
0 Votes , 0%

*  Refer to Can I add comments without editing the page? for directions.


  1. The Project scope is extremely vague without any indication what work might be done beyond "we know there will be work, but at this point we are unclear what that will be."  That's not a project scope.

    1. That's about the size of it.  We know there will be work, we know it will be funded, but this far out we don't know exactly what it will be.  This is a pattern we follow each year, but we would prefer to do each year as a separate project so we can properly start and end it.  The real problem here is the longer ballot timescale we have to work to.  What we can give an assurance of is that the PSS will be updated when we know the exact nature of the work.  For now we need to get the plane on the runway.

      1. If you can put even small detail of the actual work, I'd be happy to remove my negative but this is a carte blanche to do any work you want without oversight and I just don't feel comfortable with that.

        1. Would it help if we provided details of what has been done in previous years and said "it will be like this otherwise we will bring it back for revised approval?".  I'm not asking you to approve before we have done that, I just don't want to spend time digging stuff out and it still not be enough (smile)

          1. Yes, that works.  Anything that limits the scope should be fine.

            1. OK - I've updated the scope to read as follows:

              Changes are made to the BRIDG model based on work planned by FDA and NCI - we know there will be work, but at this point we are unclear what that will be. It will be similar in scope to that of previous releases. As an illustration BRIDG 5.3 was concerned with adding imaging semantics and updating a mapping; 5.2 was concerned with updates for anatomic pathology and specimen DAM modelling. The full release history is here: Any work of a greater scope than previously seen will be subject to separate approval.

              Text in red is new.  Does this satisfy your concerns?

              1. It does.  I revoke my negative vote. I'm not sure how to change it above, though.  Melva Peters ?

  2. David Pyke John Rhoads  I have opened up the eVote...please with draw your negative if you are satisfied with the response from BR&R

  3. Melva Peters Hugh Glover Thank you for clarifying scope. I have withdrawn my negative vote