HIMSS Annual Conference Reviewer Toolkit

Program Proposal Review Process

Phase I – Proposal Review Process

• The Annual Conference Education Committee members will be assigned a topic area(s) for oversight responsibility and to act as liaisons with the Reviewer Panels.
• HIMSS staff solicits Reviewer volunteers from the membership
• Reviewers must be approved by the ACEC
• Reviewers are assigned to a topic category based on their area of expertise.
• Reviewers are responsible for reading all the proposal forms (approx 2 pages long) that are assigned to them in their area of expertise.

Reviewers receive assignments and instructions from HIMSS staff on the review process. Proposals are available for review via the web with a designated URL address. The amount of proposals for each reviewer will vary depending on the number of proposals submitted and the number of reviewers for each topic area.

• After reading the proposals, Reviewers complete an on-line score-sheet for each proposal.
• If there is a discrepancy of the audience type, classification level, session format, etc. that the author listed, reviewers note this in the comments.
• Reviewers have the option of printing all assigned proposals/score-sheets and to work offline.
• Once the review process is completed, all the data must be entered online.
• Prior HIMSS speaker evaluation data is provided for historical ratings on speakers, and should be used as an additional basis for review.
• Speakers who receive an evaluation of 3.5 or lower on their presentation at a prior HIMSS conference, will not be invited back unless they can document the following:
• They have completed a professional speaking skills program
• They have received a higher rating for speaking at a national conference of another organization
• Reviewers are asked to record constructive comments on the score-sheet. These are made available to the proposal submitter, other Reviewers and the ACEC members to facilitate the analysis and ranking of proposals.
• HIMSS assimilates all reviewer data and ranks scores from highest to lowest in an electronic summary report.
• The summary reports are available on the web site at another assigned URL address.
• The Reviewers compare the results and make recommendations to the ACEC Topic Coordinator for sessions within their topic category. (This is done via emails and conference calls.)
• The ACEC Topic Coordinator schedules a conference call in June to review all proposals and their scores with the other reviewers in that topic category.
• As a result of the call, they make an recommendation to the ACEC for consideration at their Summer meeting.
• The ACEC have a face-to-face meeting, usually at the beginning of August, each year where they review recommendations forwarded to them and make a final selection on sessions.
• Each ACEC member provides a report on the proposals they have selected within their assigned topic category.
• All proposals are reviewed, made available for discussion, and then voted on for acceptance.
• The committee follows parliamentary procedure.
• Following the ACEC summer meeting, HIMSS staff review and process letter of invitation to all accepted speakers.
• Committee Members are instructed not to issue invitations to speakers without the permission of HIMSS.
• After the ACEC meeting, accepted proposal selections are returned to each Reviewer group for their information.

Phase II – Annotated Briefing Review Process

• This second phase begins after the ACEC and reviewers have selected the sessions.
• Accepted primary presenters for each session are asked to submit their annotated briefing (power-point slides with notes) with the option of a presentation paper and/or case study.
• Reviewers review the content and make suggestions for improvement (if needed).
• A professional editor is hired to review and make recommendations on all proposal speakers’ Power Point slides.
• A professional speech coach is hired to provide presentation tips to accepted speakers via conference calls.

• The ACEC and Reviewers are asked to moderate session(s) they have worked upon and to evaluate them at the conference.