SHNAPP Steering Committee Meeting June 5, 2015

Transcription

1 Meeting Information Meeting Location Alfond Center for Health, B3503/Room 4 Meeting Time 8:00 am to 10:00 am Attendees [bold name denote voting members] Name Attended Name Attended Nancy Birkhimer, Maine CDC X Deb Deatrick, MH (part of meeting) X Celine Kuhn, MH X Natalie Morse, MG X Jean Mellett, EMHS X Pat Hart, Hart Consulting X Patrick Madden, Market Decisions X Jayne Harper, SHNAPP Project X Tim Cowan, MH (part of meeting) X Cindie Rice, CMHC [absent] Doug Michael, EMHS [absent] Check-in about Maine SHNAPP Data Analysis Plan Jayne, Nancy, Steering Committee Jayne brought up that the Steering Committee is supposed to approve the data analysis plan but noted the size and detail of the document and asked if this is an appropriate use of the Steering Committee s time/resource. Nancy convenes the data analysis team comprised of the Maine CDC epidemiologists and Market Decisions. This group bases their decisions on the availability of data and practicality of analyses. Other decisions have been made by the Steering Committee based on recommendations from the Metrics Subcommittee (and CE Subcommittee on 4/9/15 in relation to reporting recommendations). Review & Discuss Excel Templates Market Decisions, Natalie, Deb, and Nancy feel the data analysis team comprised of the Maine CDC epidemiologists and Market Decisions can oversee the Maine SHNAPP Data Analysis Plan. The Steering Committee does not need to formally approve it although they should be aware of decisions. Jayne creates a regularly updated data decisions document for Steering Committee members and their team members involved with project metrics. The group reviewed Market Decisions templates for presenting state and county shared CHNA data from 3 of the data sources: (AI) The Steering Committee needs to vote to approve or modify this decision when all are present. Jayne will continue to share updates of the data decision document among Steering Committee members as it is updated.

2 for State & County Reporting Metrics Subcomm. BRFSS, MHDO, and MIYHS. Patrick relied on a combination of feedback received from the SHNAPP Metrics (3/25/15) and Community Engagement (4/9/15) Subcommittees and the 2012 SHA to generate these templates. The BRFSS and MIYHS tables provide unweighted and weighted counts, percentage, and upper/lower confidence interval limits. The MHDO tables provide count and rates with upper/lower confidence interval limits for crude and age-adjusted rates. Total by year, gender, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, public health district, county, rurality, education level, household income, and health insurance will be listed and data provided as available. If data are suppressed, n/a will appear in the table. The group discussed where the tables will be kept upon completion. Market Decisions will provide the tables to Maine SHNAPP. Nancy noted the Maine CDC already posts/maintains a site that has a searchable (via filters) website containing the 2012 SHA. If the shared CHNA is maintained here, the state could work with Maine SHNAPP to ensure it is branded satisfactorily. Nancy assured Maine CDC would provide resources to maintain the shared CHNA (it is the State Health Assessment). (AI) The Steering Committee needs to vote to approve or modify the decision to post/maintain 2016 Maine SHNAPP tables at the Maine CDC website. Vote to Accept Templates The group discussed details about the tables: They should NOT be read-only. The public needs to be able to download them to create their own graphs and charts. This can be done similar to the 2012 SHA to avoid accidental data changes on the web version. Patrick can provide a pdf version of tables so members of the public can access printer friendly versions of tables. (This is a value-added task Market Decisions will do for us.) There were not enough Steering Committee members present to vote/accept data table templates. Doug (via ) requested metrics experts provide recommendations before the Steering Committee (AI) The Steering Committee needs to vote to accept the recommendations of the Metrics Subcommittee.

3 votes. County & Urban Summaries: of expectations among Steering Committee members Market Decisions Do we want something 2 pages- printed out front and back or are we amendable to something longer? Natalie prefers both since a short list and a long list are useful applications for different settings. How would we make a decision about what goes on a short list? When epidemiologists worked on the 2012 SHA, they used the 2010 Call To Action Report as a guide. The group decided to ask the Market Decisions to make recommendations on which indicators to include in each summary and ask the Metrics Subcommittee for sign off on these lists by the end of June. (AI) Market Decisions will create templates for these summaries including recommended indicators for the shorter 2-page and longer summaries. These will be shared with Metrics Subcommittee on June 10 th for review and sign off before the end of June. The group decided to keep US rates on the summary sheets to show cases in which these data are available. The group decided to add URLs to the summary sheets to point the reader to the full 2016 shared CHNA and Maine SAMHS (for substance use and behavioral health data). From comments received by participants of the 2015 Quality Counts Conference (attachment included prior to this meeting), people liked the color shading to indicate significant findings in summary sheets. A symbol should be used also for situations in which black and white copies are made of these documents. Final SHNAPP Report: Clarify needs and dissemination process Urban summaries will mirror the county summaries. What is the format and content of final report? What is it going to look like? How are we going to take the SHNAPP report and use it in our individual hospital reports? Nancy and Natalie will start the discussion and it will continue when Deb, Doug, and Cindie can weigh in. By September 30, 2015, we will have: -20 reports: statewide report, 16 county level reports, and 3 urban area reports. Additionally, there will be 8 public health district summary (AI) This will be an agenda item during the next Steering Committee meeting to

4 reports. -The group acknowledged that few of us have the have internal resources to rewrite these reports. They will serve as the state health assessment and hospital CHNAs. It was proposed that Market Decisions (MD)create some boiler plate language and introductions for Maine SHNAPP signatory organizations. The requirements from the IRS include: [1] Definition of the community served (this can be described by hospitals by listing towns and/or counties served and reference to the demographic tables by county). [2] Description of the process and methods to conduct the CHNA (template language from MD) [3] Description of how hospitals solicited and took into account input from people representing the broad interests of the community (CHNA-use Stakeholders Survey and template language from MD; include any feedback from community members related to the previous CHNA/IS [hospital reps will need to add this into the template]) [4] Identify and prioritize significant health needs in the community (CHNAuse Stakeholders Survey and template language from MD; include any feedback from community members related to the previous CHNA/IS [hospital reps will need to add this into the template]) [5] Identify potential resources that could address identified needs (CHNA-use Stakeholders Survey and template language from MD) [6] see AI in the right column ensure all members have similar expectations. (AI) A future agenda item for the Steering Committee is to discuss the 6 th requirement of the IRS for CHNAs an evaluation of the impact of any actions that were taken, since the hospital facility finished conducting its immediately preceding CHNA, to address the significant health needs identified in the hospital s prior CHNA. [p of final regs] Nancy shared: [a] she has not had a chance to talk to Ken Albert about the approval process at Maine CDC/DHHS for the statewide state health assessment and [b] for accreditation, one piece is to get feedback on the draft report from the public. While the community engagement process meets this requirement for the State Health Improvement Plan (SHIP), it doesn t get at sharing a draft of the shared CHNA for comment. Would feedback from subcommittees suffice or does it have to the general public? The group felt both would work. Upon review of the Maine SHNAPP timeline, we will be getting the interim report July 31 st for review and comments. The group has until September 1 st to share their input. Is a month long (AI) Nancy will communicate with colleagues at Maine CDC to learn details of approval process and possibility of posting the draft shared CHNA during the project review period (July 31 st -September 1 st ).

5 enough? It may be. Tim Cowan provided an update of the discussion at the MaineHealth Community Health Improvement Committee (CHIC) Meeting around expectations of the final reports: -Market Decisions will be supplying the shared CHNA data tables and MH will provide their members with county level reports and suggest that members and affiliates work with internal staff to write up the CHNA -Community Forums will be arranged in the fall. All member organizations are responsible for organizing these forums in their communities with the direction of MH and SNHAPP. The group discussed whether we want Market Decisions to provide recommendations for priorities that are data driven? (e.g. cull out significant issues for the community). Jayne read language from p 15 (Section D. a-f) of Market Decisions contract, Provide SHNAPP Members Reports that contain the following required information: a. Identify national benchmarks to be used to compare results in Maine; b. Comparisons across public health districts and counties; c. Identification of health disparities and priority health improvement areas; d. Health delivery findings by county, including interpretation of results and variations; e. Recommendations to be shared with regional leaders in dissemination process yet to be identified; and f. Summaries of variation by county/urban area (Bangor, Portland) and variation by other demographics. Natalie confirmed that the last assessment was really the first time we brought together the internal clinical quality folks and had them looking at the data. We are starting to align some of the clinical priorities with the needs of community. For example- tobacco

6 assessment- on clinical side and then community pieces such as cessation. We want MD to highlight some of the significant things that the data shows but it should be data driven. Next Meetings There were some questions around the implementation strategy portion of the CHNA. The group agreed that there are benefits to having uniform presentation. But, as much as we want it uniform, the implementation strategy piece is not developmentally mature yet. Meeting Wizard started 6/5 to identify meeting time to vote on items in this column above. Save-the-date for Wednesday, July 15 th between 9 am-12:00 pm. Minutes drafted by Celine Kuhn & Jayne Harper 6/9/15