Texas cvd and stroke partnership steering committee meeting
Download
1 / 41

Texas CVD and Stroke Partnership - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 291 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Texas CVD and Stroke Partnership' - sandra_john


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Texas cvd and stroke partnership steering committee meeting l.jpg
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 partnership steering committee meeting2 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
Partnership Evaluation Results

Partnership Quality Committee

Becky Heinsohn – Chair

Don Nicholson

Dr. Hardy Loe

Dr. Thomas Alexander

Jane Osmond



Partnership objectives l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 support9 l.jpg
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.



Membership11 l.jpg
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.



Processes13 l.jpg
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.



Structures15 l.jpg
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.



Leadership17 l.jpg
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 resources20 l.jpg
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 resources22 l.jpg
Synergy – Pooled Resources

Contributions

Meeting space

Staff as facilitators

Science/Programs

Travel reimbursement

Time

In-kind

Dollars









Partnership outcomes30 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 objectives40 l.jpg
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 results41 l.jpg
Partnership Evaluation Results

Jane Osmond, MPH, RRT

Program Specialist V

Cardiovascular Health and Wellness Program

Texas Department of State Health Services

[email protected]

512-458-7111 ext 6573


ad