In Attendance: Alexia, Mary, Jeff, Jasmyn, Hiwot, George, Kelse,, Janet, Sarah
Jasmyn to send Mary a draft of the Youth and Family Advisory Evaluation timeline spreadsheet
Data Collection Timeline
It would be helpful to have one timeline to describe data collection. Other sites have mentioned this. We want to understand the different kinds of work in order not to overlap in content and to see everything laid out.
There is an old spreadsheet that has not been updated. There are a few evaluation measures with a timeline, e.g. youth and family advisory evaluations, and the table for patient measures & outcomes. Sandy had asked for a general timeline from Chelsi but it may not have been created.
Mary to look at the patient advisory evaluation spreadsheets in existence and build from there. Jasmyn can help with this.
Assessing NAVIGATE Fidelity
Staff competence is one component of fidelity.
Competence is being assessed in ECHO via staff surveys (perceived competence) and simulations which are currently being developed and provide a more objective strategy for assessing competence. These ECHO data as well as staff participation in ECHO sessions will be included in assessments of site Navigate implementation.
The pre-ECHO survey will be sent out by Cheryl (from ECHO) in the next few days.
Client receipt of Navigate components of care
Chelsi was working on an Access database that could potentially be used by sites to track delivery of Navigate and also by research team to assess delivery of Navigate. We need to figure out who will fill this out and how often.
For assessing Navigate delivery we would need to develop delivery metrics. What would we expect to see to show that NAVIGATE is being implemented well?
It is important that the data also have clinical value – i.e., have process for running reports about delivery to inform improvement work from a program standpoint.
Some sites may decide to collect data a different way and others may want us to supervise a solution. We will propose a solution but if they have another way to collect that data, we may want to give sites the freedom to do that. As long as it’s done in a way that provides data that the site lead, director and clinical team needs (as well as research team).
A question for the sites is would the Access database overlay any system they currently have? This is not clear.
One motivator for sites is if we do the reporting and report back to them. Any data the sites send to us should not have any sensitive information. A participant ID is sufficient.
If we are receiving any data that would fall under chart review category, we may need REB approval
If the sites are managing it and sending us reports, there is likely no need for REB amendment. If we have the data on our end, REB amendment may be needed
Post Training Call
We did not administer a survey asking about post-training calls. The current data we hold on CAMH servers is fidelity and readiness diagnostics tool (RDT) data.
These calls should be an opportunity to present case studies. Shirley may also present example cases on how to intervene. We will get confirmation by Monday if she is onboard.
The follow-up problem solving calls cannot be spaced out. We have a hard end date with US trainers.
We need logistical support with scheduling these calls going forward.
Please inquire with local site staff about representatives for the family and youth advisory council. We need good representation from across sites. Durham is missing a family member, Waterloo has no one and North Bay is missing a youth.