Download
1 / 41
410 likes | 819 Views
Texas CVD and Stroke Partnership Steering Committee Meeting. Meeting Objectives Provide an opportunity for partners to network and share information about their current heart and stroke related activities. Communicate partnership evaluation results to Steering Committee members.
E N D
Texas CVD and Stroke PartnershipSteering Committee Meeting • Meeting Objectives • Provide an opportunity for partners to network and share information about their current heart and stroke related activities. • Communicate partnership evaluation results to Steering Committee members. • Introduce Steering Committee members to the SharePoint site. • Elect a new Chair Elect for the 2010 year. • Provide time for Goal Committees to work face to face. • Review heart and stroke data in Texas and identify gaps that could be addressed by the partnership. • Brainstorm, prioritize, and select Partnership objectives for next year.
Texas CVD and Stroke PartnershipSteering Committee Meeting A big thanks to Seton Family of Hospitals for allowing us to meet in their beautiful facility! Introductions Who are you? Where are you from? VERY BRIEFLY – What heart and stroke news do you have?
Partnership Evaluation Results Partnership Quality Committee Becky Heinsohn – Chair Don Nicholson Dr. Hardy Loe Dr. Thomas Alexander Jane Osmond
Partnership Objectives Objective I By June 30, 2010, achieve greater than 80% agreement from the Steering Committee that the Partnership has achieved a minimum of 8 identified measures of partnership capacity to support and sustain collaborative implementation of the Texas Plan to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke.
Measures of Partnership Capacity Lead Agency Support Membership Processes Structures Leadership Staffing Synergy – Member Engagement and Pooled Resources Assessment and Planning Implementation Outcomes
Lead Agency Support You are doing a great job, keep it up. The amount and quality of work in support from DSHS staff is phenomenal. This suggests that not only are staff directly involved performing well, but that there is serious backup from the Commissioner on this.
Membership Heavy public health, light on private business, academics -- w/regards to ACTIVE participants. I think there are some key groups missing from the partnership such as integrated delivery systems, hospital groups, health plans. Getting these involved will help to achieve our goals. Committee member participation is not consistent-Committee membership continually changes. I think Stroke Rehab representation could be stronger. I am not sure we have adequate representation of sectors of society that represent the relevance of income, education, mental health, consumer interests and the like in the deliberations of the group. These perspectives are critical in understanding the range of relevant risk factors for occurrence of disease and the prospects for devising interventions that are relevant to that range of risks.
Processes It would be helpful if the larger "road map" of where we are going and our ultimate objectives were conveyed more clearly. While I agree the number of meetings are adequate, there are times when communications, surveys, etc are numerous. With respect to the importance of the third question above, I think it would be worth while having each committee spend some time discussing what is important about the data and information, how it is used and how frequently reviews of such information needs to be done.
Structures It's sometimes hard to see the work of the separate goal committees come together, and it doesn't appear there's much coordination of efforts going on toward common goals. With many people balancing significant obligations, the structures utilized offer an opportunity to participate when possible, and constantly have people with then available time working to address our needs. In my view, the structural arrangements take into account the difficulties of coordinating schedules across the State and make room for contingencies so that progress proceeds even if any one individual is presently unavailable.
Leadership Not sure whether all the leaders "own" their roles in the Partnership as much as necessary to foster growth. I do not register "inspiring" leadership. To me what this leadership does is get the job done. We all have too many meetings with no outcome and this partnership has tangible accomplishments/outcomes. Although I've been favorably impressed, and enjoyed participation, I feel that I lack information to properly respond to these questions due to my own situation involving family illness and travel.
Synergy – Pooled Resources The State Plan is long and I question whether the assumption it is a tool regularly referred. It seems the majority Active Partnership members are from the public health sector -- one which is not known for excessive resources. As you are aware, money makes the world go around. Unfortunately we lack the available funds to make an immediate & strong difference. Member resources would be improved by addition of representation from other sectors of society (as described in the previous question (consumer, mental health, income generation, education), and the addition of financial resources would allow our objectives some realistic prospects for being achieved.
Synergy – Pooled Resources Contributions Meeting space Staff as facilitators Science/Programs Travel reimbursement Time In-kind Dollars
Partnership Outcomes The Digest provides a wealth of information. Whether its usage can be expanded is a question worth investigating. Please make sure I am on the Digest distribution list.
Partnership Intermediate Outcomes Objective II By June 30, 2010, >50% of Steering Committee members will experience a self reported increase in competency in at least 3 of the 7 competency areas identified by the NACDD for managing, planning, implementing, and evaluating programs.
Partnership Areas for Improvement Objective III By June 30, 2010, > 80% of the propositions of the CCAT framework for effective coalitions will have been addressed through partnership structures, processes, and activities. Survey addresses most of these Still need to look at planning, implementation, and impact Objective IV By June 30, 2010, increase from 76% to >80% partner satisfaction with the number and diversity of Steering Committee members and general partnership members. May 2008 = 76% Satisfaction Sept 2009 = 76% Satisfaction
Additional Partnership Objectives Objective V By June 30, 2010, provide one plan for increasing partner satisfaction with communication and collaboration among system partners and Texas communities. (Identified during Plan development as a priority (Plan Goal V). Objective VI By June 30, 2010, increase by 30% the number of partners reporting using the state plan in their organization/program planning.
Additional Partnership Objectives Objective VII By June 30, 2010, conduct one assessment of stakeholder implementation of the Goals, Objectives, and/or Strategies in the State Plan (Underway – PLEASE COMPLETE YOUR SURVEY) Objective VIII By June 30, 2010, increase from 0 to 4 the number of state plan objectives related to CDC priority areas that have been implemented by the Partnership (Underway in 4 Goal Committees)
Partnership Evaluation Results Jane Osmond, MPH, RRT Program Specialist V Cardiovascular Health and Wellness Program Texas Department of State Health Services Jane.osmond@dshs.state.tx.us 512-458-7111 ext 6573
