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. • 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.
Transcript
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
Framework for Partnership Development and Evaluation
Community
Contex
t
Figure 1. Community Coalition Action Theory (CCAT)
Lead Agency/Convener Group
Processes
Leadership&
Staffing
Structures
Pooled Resources
Implementationof Strategies
Community ChangeOutcomes
CoalitionMembership
Member Engagement
Community Capacity
Health/Social
Outcomes
Formation Maintenance Institutionalization
Collaborative Synergy Assessment& Planning
Texas Heart and Stroke Prevention System Partnership – 2009-2010
Lead Agency: Department of State Health Services Convener group: Texas Association of Local Health Officials Texas Medical Association Texas Public Health Association American Heart Association Texas Medical Foundation QIO CDC Steering Committee General Membership Texas Plan to Reduce CVD and Stroke CVD and Stroke Surveillance System
PROCESSES
Identify and convene Partners Apply CCAT framework in partnership development Seek and advocate for resources for CVD and stroke Provide capacity building activities Provide collaboration/communication/networking activities Disseminate and increase use of state plan Assess and prioritize CVD and stroke challenges to be addressed Plan and Implement state plan objectives Evaluate outcomes and improve processes as needed
Diverse partnership membership Partnership meetings CCAT constructs/propositions are in place Resources contributed Capacity building opportunities Communication vehicles; opportunities for sharing/networking Partner selection of state plan objectives/strategies to implement Partnership Implementation Plans Partnership Evaluation results
Inputs Activities Outputs
OUTCOMES
Partner satisfaction with: diversity of membership; meeting effectiveness; leadership; staffing; communication; structure and processes (CCAT constructs/propositions) Active implementation of state plan objectives by partners Increased communication with stakeholders about CVD and stroke issues/resources Short term outcomes related to state plan implementation (to be determined)
Short Term (Dec 2009)
Effective statewide partnership Increase in resources available for implementing state plan objectives Increased competency of partners to conduct implementation activities Increased awareness and use of state plan Increased connection/networking/collaboration among partners Intermediate outcomes related to implementation of state plan strategies (to be determined)
Intermediate (Dec 2010)
Reduced morbidity and mortality from heart disease and stroke; reduced risk behaviors related to CVD and stroke
Long Term ( > 5 yrs)
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Staffing
Synergy – Pooled Resources
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
Synergy – Pooled Resources
Contributions
Meeting space
Staff as facilitators
Science/Programs
Travel reimbursement
Time
In-kind
Dollars
Steering Committee Meeting Attendance
0 10 20 30 40
Oct-08
Nov-08
Dec-08
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-09
Attendance
Synergy – Member Engagement
Synergy – Member Engagement
Respondent Attendance
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of Meetings
Number RespondentsAttending
Synergy – Member Engagement
Synergy – Member Engagement
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Clarity of Meeting Goals
General Meeting Participation
Meeting Leadership
Decision Making Quality By the Group
Cohesiveness Among MeetingParticipants
Problem Solving/Conflict Resolution
Meeting Organization
Meeting Productivity
Meeting Venue
Fair
Satisfactory
Good
Excellent
NA
Partnership Synergy – Member Engagement
Partnership Letters of Commitment (Feb 2009)Commitment # Letters
Support partnership 39
Support partnership activities 37
Participate in partnership work 36
Seek opportunities for collaborative efforts to implement plan 36
Seek opportunities for organization to implement the plan 34
Encourage others to implement the Plan 1
Incorporate Plan Goals/Objectives in org planning 34
Assist in disseminating Plan 33
Education communities about Partnership priorities 35
Education communities about sustained funding for CVD and stroke 33
Efforts have included attending meetings 38
Efforts have included reviewing/preparing policies and reports 1
Efforts have included supporting committee activities 36
Contributions have included staff time 36
Contributions have included travel 28
Contributions have included expertise 36
Partnership Outcomes
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 Outcomes
Digest Subscriptions
020406080
100120140
Month 2008-2009 Subsribers
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 Intermediate Outcomes
Partnership Sustainability
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
Partnership Areas for ImprovementAs we look into the future, how can the Texas CVD and Stroke Partnership be improved?
Work to raise its status/visibility within the health care community. Increase its professional diversity. Tell its "story" or successes on a consistent basis (communications committee?).
Promote the partnerships to include decision making people all across Texas ie city mangers, judges, mayors
Keep our eye on the prize, don't accept defeat.
Expand the Partnership membership to broaden reach and effectiveness
Increase membership retention
Find ways for more team members to participate
To reach the goals of the Partnership, it will take real investment of time and funds from all of the partner organizations or a group of partners dedicated to funding development. DSHS funding for CVD prevention and treatment is not sufficient alone to achieve the goals of the Partnership statewide.
If partners can offer their site for holding meetings. It may encourages organizations to get involved more directly .
We have not achieved a balance between the inpatient care and the prevention and follow-up care for affected and at risk patients. We still view these components as separate silos as opposed to a continuum of health challenges for the population.
Project management for midlevel organizational leaders. The higher level administration probably already understands the process but I think it would be fairly new to the mid-level directors.
Incorporating sectors of society not now represented as members.
Bringing more people
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.
Partnership Use of the State Plan
Partnership Use of the State Plan
% of Respondents
2008 Survey Results
2009 Survey Results
% change
Reviewed the State Plan 97 84 (13)
Studied the State Plan carefully 18 32 78
Shared the State Plan with others in my organization 32 72 125
Shared the State Plan with others outside my organization
12 44 266
Reviewed my organization's goals and objectives to determine their congruence with the Texas State Plan
26 44 69
Suggested modifications in my organization's goals and objectives to address Texas State Plan objectives
12 28 133
Used the Texas State Plan as a basis for initiating or advocating for new activities
32 60 87.5
Used the Texas State Plan to prioritize existing activities in my organization
24 44 83
Additional Partnership Objectives
Objective VIIBy 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 VIIIBy 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)
