Cathe
MAPS Patient & Family Engagement Planning Committee Minutes
December 2, 2015 1:30-3:30 p.m.
John Murphy Conference Room
Present: Lorraine Cummings, Linda Davis, Susan Flannigan, Betsy Jeppesen, Lisa Juliar, Diane O’Konski, Jennifer Strickland, Nora Vernon, Pamela Zimmerman
Staff: Betsy Currie, Marie Dotseth, Catherine Schramm, Kathy Welte
Agenda Item / Action1. Welcome / The meeting started at 1:30. Minutes of the November 4 meeting were posted on the website.
2. Discussion on focus for MAPS work at organization level / Marie Dotseth talked about the reason for MAPS work to focus on the organizational level of patient engagement and clarified that the “organization” represents a service delivery organization. There are some great tools available, particularly AIR’s “Roadmap for patient engagement”. It’s a challenge to navigate through available tools.
3. Discussion of definitions of patient an family engagement / Kathy Welte introduced the discussion proposing that the purpose for discussing definitions is to agree on some basic concepts to help us inform our work. She summarized a set of definitions from various organizations for review. We may or may not end up adopting a definition for MAPS, but will revisit this question as we progress.
Key points of discussion were:
· In a recent webinar, Tom Workman from AIR – said the key word from the new draft CMS Person and Family Engagement definition is “partners”. That means doing “with someone”, rather than doing “to someone”. CMS may be replacing the word “patient” with the word “person” for broader applicability.
· MHA “Include Always” has a mission statement. PFAC participants want to be called patient partners.
· Need a shared understanding of what we mean by engagement so we know if we are making progress and moving forward.
· Consider individual patient preferences – someone might want to be a person, another wants to be considered a patient.
· Patient safety is also ill-defined.
· Two important aspects of engagement were noted. One is when patients become engaged to benefit their own outcomes. The second is where organizations partner with patients who are involved in the work of the organization for the benefit of everyone including the staff and future patients. This is the level MAPS is working at—enhancing patient and family engagement for better and safer care.
4. Review of existing tools for organizations / Catherine Schramm summarized her review of existing tools focused at the organizational level. Our key question is how can MAPS add value and fill in the gaps? Her assessment is that there are some great tools, but most are focused on hospitals and some are higher level and don’t provide the level of information needed for implementation. Her background research with local organizations indicates that people don’t feel they need another manual, but really want opportunities to network with colleagues in their field.
5. Proposal for “virtual learning/sharing environment” / After considering the available tools and results of in-person interviews with local organizations, MAPS is proposing creating an “Open Source Guidebook” that would be web-based and highly interactive. This offers the opportunity to address gaps and create something that would be relevant for Minnesota providers and patients. Catherine described what this might involve and look like and asked for group discussion and feedback about the idea.
Some cautions were noted:
· IOM has tried to do this on a national scale – was challenging
· Ensuring section 508 compliance can be time-consuming and expensive
· There would need to be a moderator for the site and that creates an on-going cost
The advantages of/suggestions for this approach were noted to be:
· Ability to add and remove content as needed, not a static tool
· Can use prepopulated content and create an in-person event to create new content
· Can encourage patient participation in building content, sharing stories
· Uses current technology in a way that can foster knowledge sharing and help build relationships across organizations
· Need a plan B – in case the cost is too high, or it’s not feasible as a deliverable for the HEN 2.0 grant
· Need to measure something so we know if we are making progress – e.g. how many hits? Downloads? Culture measure? Could have a whole chapter or section on measures
Each person was asked to comment and the unanimous decision was for MAPS to proceed with the next steps.
· Ensure that MHA accepts this approach for the grant. Determine to what level the tool would need to be 508 compliant
· Get at least one bid for cost, feasibility and timeline
· Start to build content categories for further consideration
· Develop a proposal for how an in-person meeting could be used to generate content for the site.
6. Next meeting and Adjourn / Marie Dotseth noted that we have not concluded the discussion about when to add additional consumer representatives to this committee. We have discussed starting by adding a consumer with a mental health background. If we go ahead with the website plan, the time may be right to invite some patients from organizations that know us. A Doodle calendar will be sent to determine the next meeting date in January. The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.