MAPS Patient & Family Engagement Planning Committee Minutes

November 4, 2015 1:00-2:30 p.m.

John Murphy Conference Room

Present: Tessa Billman, Lorraine Cummings, Betsy Currie, Linda Davis, Marie Dotseth, Susan Flannigan, Betsy Jeppesen, Lisa Juliar, Allison Matthews, Diane Okoneski, Jennifer Strickland, Farris Timimi, MD, Nora Vernon, Cally Vinz, Kathy Welte, Pamela Zimmerman

Guest: Zack Adedayo

Agenda Item / Action
  1. Welcome and introductions
/ The meeting started at 1:00. Marie Dotseth opened the meeting by thanking people for their willingness to participate and asked for self introductions and comments about current work and interest in patient engagement.
  1. MAPS priorities for 2015
/ Marie reviewed MAPS vision, mission and strategic area of focus, why it is specifically calling this group together. MAPS interest is to obtain input from a broadly representative group on deliverables for a new subcontract with the MHA to advance work related to patient and family engagement to further patient safety.
  1. Background review and review of patient engagement framework
/ Kathy Welte summarized work done by MAPS project consultant, Catherine Schramm last summer. She conducted a literature review on patient and family engagement. She also conducted “deep dive” structured interviews with a number of different types of healthcare organizations to learn about current infrastructure and processes related to patient and family engagement and what resources would be most valuable for these organizations. While there were significant differences in the type of engagement activities among the organizations, a number of common themes emerged (see handout). These themes formed the background for the design of the subcontract work MAPS has agreed to do. Committee members felt the findings reflected their experience quite well.
Kathy then summarized a framework for consideration that was developed In the article (sent in advance of the meeting): Patient and Family Engagement: A Framework for Understanding the Elements and Developing Interventions and Policies by Kristin Carman et. Al. It was published in Health Affairs in February 2013. The framework distinguishes three different levels of engagement and a continuum of engagement activities/attributes. MAPS is considering whether adopting the model concepts would provide additional structure for its work and for community consideration. Kathy asked for group discussion about the framework.
  1. Framework discussion
/ A number of comments were made as part of the discussion.
  1. The examples in the consultation, involvement and partnership boxes feel dated and very specific to hospitals. The framework is two years old and there have been advances. There were no patients among the authors.
  2. The basic framework has merit as a way to think about characterizing work, but it would be important to make it more specific to different types of organizations and provide more relevant examples. There are so many options for work that it can feel overwhelming and chaotic. There is value in having a framework to guide work.
  3. In general, the group agrees that “moving to the right” in the framework is where we want to go. MAPS’ goal is to help organizations move in that director more quickly than they might be able to do on their own.
  4. Patient advisory councils seem to be the focus of a lot of organizations. Creating and managing an advisory council is a lot of work and may not always translate to worthwhile results. One consideration is to make sure there are very specific tasks for the group, rather than a general charge. Another is that it’s critical to build relationships between on-line staff and advisory members. Without trust, effective improvement doesn’t happen and advisors feel marginalized. Feedback to the group about action taken on recommendations is key.
  5. A number of organizations have been, or are struggling with a definition of patient and family engagement. There is one in the article and it would be useful to compare definitions and adopt one for MAPS. Key is to infuse the voice of the patient throughout the organization, rather than just have some token representatives or some committees or councils.
  6. Understanding more about the evidence that increased, effective engagement actually improves patient safety would be important to demonstrate the value and evidence base of MAPS work. Marie mentioned the Lucian Leape report as one good reference and will send a link to it.
  7. The group would like to discuss metrics for this work.
  8. There was discussion about when the right time would be too add two to three more consumer members to this group. No conclusions were reached.

  1. Next meeting, next steps
/ The goal is for this group to meet monthly.
  • MAPS will send out a Doodle calendar to identify the next meeting date and time. The next meeting will be for two hours.
  • Staff will also ask for several volunteers to describe their work in more detail.
  • MAPS will create a list of articles etc. that support increased safety with increased engagement.
  • MAPS will ask organizations to share their definitions of patient engagement in advance of the next meeting to help inform that discussion.
  • MAPS will send out the revised Powerpoint presentation that was used in the meeting.

  1. Adjourn
/ The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.