Project Evaluation
Discussion
We’ve made an assumption that we want to validate with the group. Over the last couple of days we've heard many groups say that ABNS shoud play a central role in moving this forward. Do you see ABNS serving as the oversight for the group? If so, then we can give more of a direction to the board which will help us direct our efforts. We want to look at the partnership ideas we have and I see that board is positioned to do that. I just want it to be validated here.
MK: Is there any other organization in this room that should play a central role in moving this forward?
I think there will be a lot of other organizations who can partner in this. Not every organization has a seat on the research committee but they probably have an interest and I think the board needs to take that into consideration.
It would be great to have links to the articles.
MK: How many of you support ABNS being the central coordinator of this agenda?
Yes: 75 hands raised
Here is the result of our voting on the projects that we just heard being report out:
These three projects are part of the research agenda:
- Critical thinking,
- Certification and adverse events
- Recertification.
Do we really think recertification makes a difference on surgery of wrong body parts? We should look into things like that. We can carry it forward to the next working groups and have them work this in more detail.
My notion of the research agenda isn’t to say we’ve chosen three projects and that we’re going to make them happen. We now have a direction to move in.
We want to have something around critical thinking in the research agenda but we’re not going to come up with our research question here but rather the direction that we’re going.
I think we’re going a different direction than I think we need to be going. We can't work on projects until we know more about the funding and the partnerships etc.
MK: We’re going to have a yes – and. We're going to do both - parallel process these different topics and see where we end up. We’re going to have the group vote with their feet and see where the energy is to do the next round of work.
We need broader categories. I suggest symptom relief goes into adverse events. We can also combine a couple of other things too.
MK: Okay let’s look at the board here so you can vote.
I think we need to have a group who can look at prioritization. I am pretty unclear how the work here will be used. I’m concerned that the tool of research has been decided on before it has been decided on whether it’s the right one to use. Major research studies might not achieve our objectives.
Do you think a marketing effort is a better use of resources?
Yes. We should have a marketing group then and discuss other things besides research.
Stand up, put your name under a topic you have interest in working on and let's get to work!
Here is the final vote:
