Research and Evaluation Committee (REC) Meeting
Agenda
May 5, 2016
Attendance voting members (year term started)
Present / PresentVoting Members / Kaitlin Lilienthal
Jodi Polaha (2014) / x / Karen Kinman
Tina Studts (2016) / x / Kathryn Woods
Robyn Shepardson (2016) / x / Katie Kanzler
Jennifer Hodgson (2014) / x / Lauren Tolle
Zephon Lister (2014) / Limor Gildenblatt
Jennifer Wray (2015) / x / Lori Zeman
CR Macchi (2016) / x / Mark Vogel
Patti Robinson (2016) / Mary Peterson
Stephanie Trudeau (2016) / x / Mary Talen
Matthew Tolliver
Committee Members / Melissa Baker
Alejandra Posada / Nyann Biery / x
Amber Landers / x / Tawnya Meadows
Angela Giles / Patrick Palmieri
Angela Lamson / Polly Kurtz / x
Ann Aspnes / Randi Dublin
Astrid Beigel / x / Rebecca Aycock
Beth Nolan / Rodger Kessler
Bill McFeature / Rusty Kallenberg
Brian DeSantis / Stacy Ogbeide / x
Chris Hunter / Suzanne Daub
Christine Borst / Tawnya Meadows
Christina Vair / x / Tina Runyan
CJ Peek / x / Tom Bishop
Colleen Cordes / Vickie Lynn
Danielle King / Waymon Hinson
David Johnson / Will Lusenhop / x
Elizabeth Banks / x / William Sieber
Emma Gilchrist
Gary Rosenberg
Ian Bennett
Jeff Goodie / x
Jennifer Funderburk / x
Jeri Turgesen
Joe Grasso
1. March minutes approved with no objections
2. Research and Evaluation Fellowship
a. The call for applications is now live! The deadline is June 1.
i. 2016 Application: http://www.cfha.net/?page=ResearchFellowship
ii. Action item: Robyn will send another email to CFHA list serv now
iii. Volunteers for review team: Jen W, Robyn, Tina, Will, Jeff
1. Review process is mostly done online and then usually 1 phone call if needed
2. Action item: Robyn will send out the information to the review team once we get it from Polly after the deadline.
iv. Timeline: reviews need to be done in June, with results tabulated in time for July meeting, Polly usually sends out notification letter in August
b. 2015 Review Criteria: http://www.cfha.net/?page=FellowshipEval2015
i. Thanks to Jen W, Patti, and Jen H for reviewing.
ii. Minor wording changes were suggested for announcement but nothing for the review criteria, which was extensively revised last year and is in good shape.
c. Discuss if we should we include more information on the fellowship and/or its outcomes on our webpage, as this info might be of interest to the CFHA audience
i. Jodi: Let’s add more examples of prior proposals. We could add more of the prior winners and/or add the new ones going forward.
ii. Jen F: Note the deliverables (e.g., publications/presentations) on our website
iii. When we are getting the 6-month and 1-year progress report from the current fellow, at that time we can contact prior years’ fellows to inquire if any deliverables resulting from the fellowship
iv. Polly: We could update the website with info about past years’ fellows like what is on there for Caitlin Burdett (2012)
v. Action item: Tina will collect info from prior fellows: Christina Vair (2013), Robyn Shepardson (2014), and Jen Wray (2015), then forward to Polly to add to website.
vi. Action item: Polly to check on the duplicate title “research fellowship evaluation template” and ensure only the most current one is posted.
3. Updates Regarding 2016 CFHA Conference
a. Thanks to everyone who reviewed proposals last month!
b. Subcommittee on posters at CFHA conference (Stephanie)
i. Deadline for poster submissions is now May 13 (used to be May 6). Submit yours soon! Call for posters is here: http://www.cfha.net/page/Posters_2016
1. There are 38 submissions as of this morning.
2. They are a little behind in notifying accepted presenters so they extended the deadline for posters by 1 week in case authors of presentations that do not get accepted want to submit as a poster.
ii. Volunteers to review the posters starting mid-May: Robyn, Jen H, Jodi, Stephanie, CR, Elizabeth, Tina; Jen F (backup)
iii. There will be 3 waves of the poster review process
1. Starting mid-May: Review abstracts, evaluate per review criteria (same as those for presentations with slight alterations), decide which will be accepted
2. Over the summer: Sort through the abstracts to identify (a) necessary changes to the future call for posters and poster review criteria, and (b) what type of posters we are getting (e.g., true research vs. other types) to inform the types of awards we should have next year and determine whether or not an award can be given based on the poster abstract alone
3. September: Matching the posters to the presentations for publicity purposes
4. Training in Research and Evaluation Track at 2016 CFHA Conference
a. Submissions for this year’s track
i. Thanks to everyone who submitted this year! Submissions were reviewed by the broader reviewers as well as reviewers within REC using the newly created rubric. The CFHA conference planning committee is making final decisions soon.
ii. We got helpful feedback from REC reviewers related to using the rubric and how to structure the online evaluation form, so we can incorporate that for next year.
b. Discuss idea for consultation kiosk or technical assistance breakout sessions where presenters and/or REC members are available to consult with conference attendees.
i. Jodi: Last year we had 90-minute sessions, but this year it is only 45 or 60 minutes and it is difficult to teach content in such short sessions. Co-presidents had the idea to use some of our REC sessions for consultation. It could be like a kiosk or table near the space where the REC track presentations are given. Attendees to REC track presentations could come to the kiosk/table to more formally engage with the content that was taught in the sessions. We envision individuals and/or small groups meeting with the presenters afterward to consult on specific projects or questions they have; however, this would require presenters to give up some of their conference time. We need feedback on this idea.
ii. Polly: Logistics – The facility has a lot of common space outside of the breakout rooms so we could set up a table and a couple chairs out there. Not sure if it would be private or quiet enough. We can try to visually demarcate the area. Many of the presenters from the REC track are presenting in multiple sessions so it may be difficult to request additional time from them to staff a table/kiosk.
iii. Tina: We could do REC consultation tables at the lunch when there are discussion groups. We could invite everyone who is presenting in the track to attend the lunch and serve as “consultants.” Or we could have signups for dinners or something like that. Re: dinner idea, CFHA does not have to organize it formally, it could just be an additional way to allow for presenters and attendees to interact.
1. Polly: The discussion group lunch is on Friday. We could probably hold an REC consultation during the lunch but have it in a separate room. It would compete with the ECP lunch and other discussion groups held at the same time.
iv. CJ: Likes the lunch idea. At STFM they had a “Shark Tank” research program, like the TV show. It was fun and different and worked very well. They had well known people as the “sharks.” Seven people presented their research idea in 5 minutes and with 5 minutes for questions/discussion from the sharks. If a person’s idea was “in,” the sharks agreed to help out in the future as a consultant. The presenters and the audience seemed to get a lot out of it.
v. We all concluded we liked the lunch consultation idea, and we want to do the Shark Tank program next year!
vi. Action item: Please send any feedback you have on the idea for consultation opportunities via a lunch period, at a kiosk/table, or other formats to Robyn.
c. Future meetings: Discuss promoting attendance at track sessions, whether/how to issue certificates, and how to best evaluate the track (e.g., survey within conference app).
5. Takeaways from APA Integrated Primary Care Alliance Meeting (Jen F)
a. This was a meeting led by Susan McDaniel and Frank DeGruy with a goal of pushing the field of integrated primary care forward. Most major healthcare associations and professional groups were represented.
b. At the end the group came up with action items ranging from lobbying for policy changes and changes in healthcare payments. Ideas relevant to research include
i. Evidence for integrated care lives all over the place, and there is no way for policy makers to easily access the information in a format they can quickly understand and use. The traditional journal article format is not useful to them. Instead policy makers like to have pinpoint data (e.g., a single great figure or table) AND patient stories. So the need here is for more than just collating articles into one place, it is for concise, easily digestible summaries of data along with personal patient stories to illustrate. Research showing benefits for cost and patient outcomes are the most “sellable” to policy makers.
ii. Need to identify outcome measures that are broad/global beyond quality of life.
iii. Need a workforce that can conduct research to address questions in the field.
iv. Need more on team science and interdisciplinary collaboration
c. We will revisit this at our next meeting to continue discussing ideas.
6. Quarterly Research Article Updates for CFHA Listserv (Elizabeth, Jen H)
a. Second issue of the research update is currently being prepared.
7. REC-sponsored CFHA webinars
a. July: Patti Robinson et al. will give a talk on mentorship on Wednesday, July 13.
i. Title: The Scientist Practitioner Model in Primary Care: From Mentor to Mentee.
b. August: Joe Grasso will give a webinar on QI. Date/title not yet confirmed.
c. Need to start promoting these, and remember to promote REC track during them.
8. Call for papers for FSH: http://www.cfha.net/?FSHResearchEd
a. Action item: Reminder to submit your article by July 1!
9. Next committee meeting: Thursday, June 2 at 1:00pm Eastern