In Attendance: Alexia, Christine, Kelsey, Mary, Dayna, Jasmyn, Chelsi, George, Janet, Sarah, Eva, Jeff
Action Items
Share example Terms of Reference from other groups – Chelsi/Jasmyn
Alter language to fit Implementation Committee and bring back to next week’s meeting – Alexia/Janet
Have discussion around what should be included in common between sites for clinician contact forms – George/Sarah/Janet
Physician RDT
Take a look/make comments – Implementation Committee
Finalize content - Janet
Send to site physicians via REDCap – PSSP/Steve
Send around Family Education sheet/poster and create “tips” sheet - Jeff
Minutes
Terms of Reference/Co-lead
Chelsi and Jasmyn will share example Terms of Reference from other groups
Makes sense to have PSSP co-leads right now, and include ECHO (Nikki/Sanjeev) later on down the project timeline
Janet and Alexia right now will be co-leads
Would lead meetings (make sure to be present), make final decisions in the absence of consensus, be responsible for bringing back items to Steering Committee
Implementation/fidelity is considered one “piece” by PSSP
PSSP updates/status report document
Might not be worth it to go through everything every meeting, but rather highlighting some items worth discussing
What is the most useful type of information to research group/everyone else?
Logistics and staffing updates – to Chelsi and Jasmyn
The barriers, the problems, the things coming up that aren’t working with implementation; high-level implementation feedback – to Sarah
Success stories, what is going well (might help strategize around barriers as well) – George
PSSP will start doing that for the sites in future
Is the layout of the update information good for everyone (Sarah/George)?
George: overall useful; can new updates be in regular font, already reviewed in a lighter grey font (for example) to make new pieces easier to pick out?
If something has been resolved, it can be fully taken out of the document to minimize length of the document
How detailed should the document be?
In a lot of situations, high-level message is helpful, but highlighting relevant details is also welcome
It is fine to not include details that George/Sarah don’t necessarily need to be aware of/are very granular
Mapping out examples somewhere is helpful from an implementation/evaluation perspective, so we can look through it at some point or in case anyone wants more details - this will likely help down the line
This doesn’t necessarily need to be in the site update, however
Can always expand on items in the update at the Implementation Committee Meetings
REDCap
We moved away from using REDCap for the clinician contact forms
It was a privacy and logistical issue
Storing data on REDCap at CAMH concerning patients at other sites à not “routine practice”
Decided that it isn’t worth going down this route
Instead, we will work with the sites to see what works with them
We are also using the SURF to look at fidelity on a higher level as well
This would be part of the fidelity chart review, in terms of research ethics/REB approval
Non-identifying information could also be collected in an Excel sheet, as the sites want a way to aggregate this information for their own benefit (this would be site-specific)
Changing the use of the clinician contact forms hasn’t been a major barrier, and it is better to find out these issues sooner rather than later
Niagara – having a conversation to see how they can adapt the forms to meet everybody’s needs
General challenge with fidelity reviews - documentation is inconsistent, and it’s difficult to find evidence that something is being delivered. This has come up a bit in conversation with Shirley.
Clinician contact forms may help resolve this issue and provide commonality across the sites
Could have relevance beyond these programs
Niagara has added Navigate roles to focus fields in their documentation so they can sort by those things
They aren’t sure how they are going to incorporate the information from the forms into their records
North Bay: recognize that documentation is a main area of focus/shift and are moving to paperless in the fall and revamping EMR
They are working with their tech people to build contact forms into EMR
The sites don’t need to feel obligated to include all of the fields in the clinician contact forms, if they feel a subset will be more useful (these forms are quite detailed as they currently are)
In Niagara they like all of the fields
Key is to know what each site is collecting, and make sure that there are some common elements across the sites
Need direction from Janet about what key pieces they should be collecting
This can be in collaboration with George, Sarah à have email discussion
RDT Update
Chelsi will stop following up around in-person training evaluation
Will focus on readiness - will have to do some outreach around completing it
Physician version was circulated today – has 14 items
Everyone take a look
Main question – do we keep it broad (i.e. Navigate) or focus on prescribing piece?
A mix of both is likely appropriate – they will likely do some patient education around Navigate as well as prescribing
For measurement tools, could be more specific around the prescriber
For training part – even if not applicable right now, might be good to include for comparison purposes later on
Currently the way it is laid out/language used seems fine – George
We should ask the prescriber what site they are from
Knowledge Development/Translation
Put together 1-page handout for family
Written in plain language, visually appealing
Can be sent home with people
Almost ready to go, just circulating within-team then will send around and make sure it aligns with George/Sarah experience, etc.
This is for the intervention for family (family education program) – explains what it is, gives a summary, why it is useful, etc.
About a 2-minute read
Hopefully this will increase interest from families
Tried to stick to simplified language from the manual
Could also potentially be made into a poster, e.g. for clinic waiting room for families to see
In family manual, there are some tips on how to involve family who might not be initially interested – Jeff could potentially put together a tip sheet based on this as well
They will review this internally then send it around
Comentários