In attendance: Aristotle Voineskos, Nicole Kozloff, George Foussias, Sarah Bromley, Claire de Oliveira, Kelly Anderson, Sophie Soklaridis, Josette Morin, Krista Whittard, Sheila Gallagher, Kim Hewitt, Jeff Rocca, Alexia Jaouich, Mary Hanna, Kelsey Jones, Nandini Saxena, Dayna Rossi, Sandy Brooks, Karleigh Darnay, Jennifer Hardy, Eva Serhal, Janet Durbin, Jean Addington, Paul Kurdyak, Catherine Ford, Diana Urajnik, Sara Traore, Augustina Ampofo, Coulson Bodogh, Lillian Duda, Nicolle Plante-Dupuis, Dielle Miranda, Chelsi Major, Jasmyn Cunningham, Sanjeev Sockalingam
Action Items
Circulate the SPOR Patient Engagement Framework – Chelsi
Compile and submit CIHR Annual Report – Dielle
Send example of hybrid papers to Nikki – Jane
Minutes
New Sites
Waterloo Wellington and Sudbury were on the grant as original sites. They had to take a step back, but now they are coming back on board (Waterloo Wellington definitely, Sudbury probably)
We’ve achieved our year one goals with the three sites being trained, getting REB and contracts completed, etc.
We are also getting interest from sites that weren’t originally on the project.
We don’t have the research money to support implementation of these sites in other parts of the project – how can we do this in a more contained way?
We want to support sites implementing this – maybe not this team, but an overlapping team
We want a coordinated system across the province if possible
They can potentially be participants on the ECHO? They get a portion of the implementation, with the case-based learning – ECHO likely will scale well, as will simulation training, etc.
Columbia/on-track program is a good model to look to
ICES data lend themselves more easily to compare these additional sites. Fidelity does as well, as we need to know if care is up to the standard
Waterloo Wellington Site
Had a call with them last week
Getting started with REB/contracts – they have a smaller REB. Hoping to get the administrative stuff wrapped up in the next month or so
We’ve created an onboarding document
Next steps: determining who their PSSP specialist will be,
Then the clinic infrastructure, questions, implementation landscape will begin,
Fidelity is also looped in there as well
We will circulate new SPOR Patient Engagement Framework
CIHR Annual Report
Annual oversight report includes:
Progress report
Financial report
Updated work plan
Chelsi circulated an updated progress report to the Steering Committee, we will compile comments and submit (due June 14th)
Implementation
Training
In post-training calls with trainers
It is going relatively well, some difficulty with people consistently attending, but the PSSP support is great
We are actively problem solving what training will look like for the onboarding of new sites
Chelsi has forwarded the website information as well
Site Updates
Sites are all in active implementation
Goals are to problem solve, to see what is going well and what has been challenging
PSSP is working with program leadership and staff at sites to support implementation
Focusing on making NAVIGATE business-as-usual
More recently, also thinking about how the research fits with the implementation process
Identifying PSSP specialist for the new sites – this week identified someone for Waterloo Wellington, Dayna will likely support Sudbury
From a Knowledge Exchange (KE) perspective – developing an onboarding process, both for these two sites and for sites not a part of the research
Also developing KE documents to support the implementation at the sites, which are seen by Youth and Family Advisory Committees before being distributed
EPION conference – working on presentation for that, and thinking about other ways to share knowledge as well
North Bay update:
Case load of 21-23
7 clients full IRT, 5 partial, 1 new IRT start this week
3 family in Family Education, met with a 4th family who will be starting
1 client was doing SEE who is now working (yay!)
IRT clinician working with client with global development delay, strengths cards have been helpful
Family clinician – families are engaged with the process
Biweekly team meetings – implementing Navigate structure (agenda/tracking) – trying for the first time today after this meeting
Josette will lead the first few meetings, then after that everyone will be taking turns chairing the meetings
Niagara update:
15 clients receiving full IRT
Just completing family group with 6 families in it
Onboarding 12 families into group this summer
Now moving to having more frequent family groups (used to be 3 times a year)
Family members have been liking the binder of resources for family groups
Strength assessment/goal setting has been going well
Team meetings are a blend of navigate/administrative/process tasks, as there have been a lot of process changes
SEE calls – clinicians haven’t found them particularly helpful (but they will continue to go)
They work with partner agencies for job development, there are some challenges when they aren’t familiar with the population
Durham update:
Implemented NAVIGATE with new clients on April 1st
Some older clients are being discharged
Lost both SEE workers – only enough money to post for for 4 days a week, temporary one year position (filling for a disability)
Just had fidelity assessment (chart review) done on Monday, interviews will be done over the next 2-3 weeks
ECHO
Decided on curriculum topics for 8 sessions
Been meeting with broader hub group for plan for the launch (July 23rd)
Will be having monthly calls, from July to new fiscal year (when post-training calls taper off), then it will move to a biweekly model
Might open it up at that point to a provincial hub, depending on conversations that continue about new sites
Also looking at research versus evaluation pieces for this
Will be identifying general things that are reported to the ministry, to align with the research outcomes
With other ECHOs, there isn’t a defined set of care providers/partners, but in this research context this is one consideration we’ve factored in
Otherwise, sticking to our general ECHO implementation process
Another consideration: information at a high-level about participant engagement is usually taken down (identifying at an organizational level) – will this impact the research protocol? Might need to do this slightly differently
Need to do some technical orientation before July 23rd with the sites – the week or so before we plan to launch the ECHO session
Will run a session with each group to orient to the technology, to the model, etc.
Service Measures and Outcomes
Completed fidelity assessments and readiness survey distribution at two of the sites
In the process with Durham – chart review completed, it went well
Readiness survey has gone out to Durham staff
Will continue with other two sites when they come in
Will reach out to Waterloo Wellington in the near future to talk about the fidelity review at that site
Service Measures and Outcomes Committee met last month – it was initially populated by researchers, but we needed broader representation
We have brought on a service provider (chair of SISC, and program director of a community mental health agency)
Likely bringing on a doctoral student as well
Committees will be meeting with Youth and Family Advisories over the next month, to explore how to stay connected and get feedback
Future work: focusing more on work plan and details for qualitative data collection to get feedback from clients/families/staff
Staff piece will be in 2020
Client/family timelines are still being worked out thinking of bringing to the group as to when might be the best time to start interviews with family members and clients
Want to make sure people have an opportunity to experience NAVIGATE, then interview them about their experiences
Juveria/Sophie/Aristotle will meet in the next few weeks to talk a bit more about this
Having some patient/family experiences would be helpful, need to balance with the fact that the data should be unbiased and there are enough patients and families from whom to sample
Local context is also important to consider when conducting these interviews
Patient Measures and Outcomes
Sorting out the recruitment process with the people on the ground
We are waiting to hear back from the family advisory group for a caregiver rated measure of functioning for participants as an added outcome measure
Still a planned start for recruitment in July
Continuing to build the databases in REDCap and Access
Had site visits at Niagara and Durham, and will be going to North Bay later this week
Discussing logistical processes, safety/risk plans for the sites, site concerns, and setting up the referral process from the clinical teams
Answering site leads’ and clinicians’ questions about the process, their role in it, etc.
Youth/Family Advisory
Family:
Family Advisory Committee has been meeting since January
They would love to get a member from Durham, and will also need to get family member representatives from Waterloo Wellington
Chelsi and Jasmyn have been supporting the group, helping with Terms of Reference, onboarding materials, etc.
Finalizing the family/youth engagement measures to assess engagement in the committees
From Family Advisory Committee: very interested in the research side of the study, the measures, how we are going to demonstrate how the objectives have been met
Youth:
Youth Advisory Committee is going well, still have only 4 members
Just finalized some posters to distribute to sites to assist with recruitment
Will reach out to EPION to add a recruitment blurb to the newsletter
Talking about participating in EPION video clips at conference
Working on creating onboarding documents for new members
Looking at measuring patient/family service engagement
Engagement Measures and Outcomes
Divya and Simone (with Jasmyn/Lillian/Augustina) have worked together to work out what the ideal number/frequency of assessments is to measure engagement with Youth and Family Advisory Committees
We’ve amended the frequency and type of measures; we have more in-depth measures every 6 months and lighter ones every month to measure/support engagement
Deliverables
There is a rough draft of the protocol paper
Challenge to structure it since it’s 4 projects in 1
Will likely have to cut about half of the content
High level question: are people comfortable re-ordering the objectives to make more sense for the flow of the paper, and can we tweak the wording of the objectives (if staying true to the objectives)?
Ct.gov and protocol paper have to be aligned
Will connect with Jasmyn, and will have questions to put to individuals
Will have draft to review in the next week or so
There are hybrid protocol paper examples for these kinds of papers (type 3?) that combine research and implementation together – Janet will send over a couple examples
EPION panel submissions
We’ve submitted 2 panel submissions to the EPION conference
Family and Youth Advisory Committees might submit video clips
Find out in 3 or 4 weeks if the panels have been accepted to the conference
We may also think this conference as a way to have an in-person team meeting for those people attending EPION
Comentários