Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
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.
A big thanks to Seton Family of Hospitals for allowing us to meet in their beautiful facility!
Who are you?
Where are you from?
VERY BRIEFLY – What heart and stroke news do you have?
Partnership Quality Committee
Becky Heinsohn – Chair
Dr. Hardy Loe
Dr. Thomas Alexander
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.
Lead Agency Support
Synergy – Member Engagement and Pooled Resources
Assessment and Planning
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Staff as facilitators
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.
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.
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
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
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).
By June 30, 2010, increase by 30% the number of partners reporting using the state plan in their organization/program planning.
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)
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)