Moving Forward
Team Topics
Assignment
Click here to see the assignments for all the teams
Wiki
The teams documented their work into their respective wiki entries. You can find that site here. Then choose which team's work you'd like to see.
Report Out
Michael Kaufman
I want to see if we can do two things at the same time. We want to edit the Participant Agreement. We don’t really want to wordsmith in a large group, but we can have some discussion about assure and ensure. Here is the updated document.
The sidebar group made a decision that should come before the commons, then any of the other groups can make a report if you feel you need to.
Group 5 – GMP Sidebars
http://nationalalliance.pbwiki.com/22309-Group-5%3A-GMP-v1-Sidebars
We feel that the sidebars should be removed because of the legal implications and arena that we have to work in this country. We think it should be in a preamble so that it would cover the whole document.
Q: What prevents the licensing board from adopting this?
A: Nothing.
Comment: One guiding principle is that because this is dynamic document it speaks putting it in to a formal regulation and statute forum. The other thing is that there was a discussion of the copyright. That would require people to request to use it for a purpose. The protection of the document to be used could be done that way.
In the preamble it says that it is not intended for that use, but it could be used for that.
The difference between the British version and ours is that theirs is much more bold.
It is important to emphasize the collaborative effort of the group. We heard that the bullet points were over the top.
Q: Is it impossible for a lawyer to use this in a suit?
A: No.
We’re here to promote the idea that doctors will use this.
If this puts the preamble to rest, I vote for it. I don’t think we ever expected the GMP to be a standard, but a guide. It is intended to define what competency is, but the licensing boards are responsible to set standards. We don’t say that you have to have 60% of the bullets in order to pass. That’s not up to us. If there is a way to broaden this new statement, I’m all for it. This seems to be the crux of the problem we have with this.
Q: Is it is possible to say that this is a guide for best practices?
A: But that’s all in the preamble.
MK: A sense of the commons: can you live with it?
Most hands raised.
Team 7 – GMP Ongoing
http://nationalalliance.pbwiki.com/22309-Group-7%3A-GMP-Ongoing
We did considerable work on the appendix. What we wanted to suggest is that we think we need to do these four things to go forward.
- Decide to reopen GGMP for comment. It is now closed for comments on the website. https://gmpusa.org/
- Decide on working group membership
- Find an organization to volunteer staff to coordinate GMP
- Copyright decision
We need to decide at this meeting whether we’re going to copyright and which organization should hold the copyright. We’d like you to say to the steering committee your recommendation. We don’t want to push that to the next summit.
MK: We can do that right here. There are 3 copyrights that you can get right now. Each of them has different levels of rights. http://creativecommons.org/license/
We have an entire report of what we think the working group should do along with some responsibilities but I didn’t think that was for the commons.
Q: How long are you going to leave the document open?
A: It would be continuously open, but when we formally change it, the working group would take all the comments and change to the next version. This recommendation would come from the inter-summit working group but the decision would come from the commons.
The recommendations for change should be kept on the website for everyone to approve them. This way this document is completely transparent.
MK: Can we agree generally from the commons about these four things? (yes to 1, 2, and 4). How about number 3?
Q: This requires having support staff. How will we solve this?
A: I think we need to make this as simple as possible but we may not want the bits and pieces but need an integrated effort to solve the bigger question of needing staff.
MK: Let’s decide on the volunteers for the working group membership.
Team 2 – Alliance Strategy
http://nationalalliance.pbwiki.com/22309-Group-2%3A-Alliance-Strategy
1. Create individual participation agreement
2. Obtain organizational support by organizational participation agreement (Note: steering committee needs to create a budget and business plan and staffing, with specific $ expectations.
3. Encourage but do not require endorsement of "products"
4. Copyright to protect intellectual property (all "products" created)
5. Create methodologies for dissemination of products
6. Establish mechanisms for dialogue and collaboration between organizations (create affinity groups)
7. Develop mechanism to identify additional topics for discussion or focus
8. Develop a mechanism to involve/include additional stakeholders (hospitals, patients, residents, other health professionals, etc.)
9. Create executive summary of all prior summits.
10. Decide how much recognition or publicity we want. (? work through the power of our sponsoring organizations?)
I think affinity groups should be open so that if someone wants to join, they should be able to.
I don’t think we should wait to decide on staff. Otherwise, we’ll just be waiting at the next summit too. It may be patchwork but we need to start with something.
I don’t really understand why we have to copyright. We want to get this disseminated as much as possible. I don’t think we need to own anything.
I’m not sure that these amorphous things about the copyright and the work we want to do with the working groups is the right thing. I know I’m new to the commons but I want to raise this question.
MK: Good. This group has decided before that there might be times to leave things open and other times when you have to formalize. So let’s move on to the conditions.
Team 8 - Conditions for good medical practice
http://nationalalliance.pbwiki.com/22309-Group-8%3A-Conditions-for-GMP
There is a lot of text here so I don’t want to read it. Maybe all of you can have a look at it tonight and make some comments or changes.
I don’t think we’ll have time to read it tonight. There are other things we have to do.
Q: How many pages is it?
A: Almost one page.
Q: Can you print it out for us?
MK: Yes, we will print it out for you and have it available for you in the morning.
My sense is that we haven’t said anything unique.
I think it sounds so negative compared to the GMP. The GMP is so inspirational and I would like to have the wording changed to reflect that.
Where is our boldness? I’d like to see what we really can do here.
The system errors are well-documented. I would suggest that we focus on things we can do. This is not all external but internal too.
MK: It’s possible that the next iteration can reflect these ideas. There are three things we need to do. Print out this verbiage, get a working group together,
I’m thinking about the future of the organization. I think we’ve been moderately successful in bringing physician organizations together, but not so much with patient or even hospital organizations. Our greatest strength is to bring all the people from the healthcare system to coalesce around these issues. Otherwise we’ll be seen just as another self-interested group. I’d like us to walk the walk and not just talk.
Team 6 – Who Could be Using the GMP
http://nationalalliance.pbwiki.com/22309-Group-6%3A-Who-Could-Be-Using-GMP
We did focus on the main groups which are the educators and all the points along the continuum. There are a couple of issues that need to be resolved, for example, further defining the GMP, the future orientation so that newer members will adopt this, inability to create consensus, and educating potential physicians and patients about the expectations of roles and responsibilities. We want to think about how the media will use this document and how the information will be disseminated.
We’re wondering if this is the right time to do this. One of the proposals was to have a webinar that would be more inclusive of the larger body of stakeholders, focused around GMP.
MK: Sense of the commons?
So so response
I think the GMP is not ready. This could be a different mechanism on the same point.
I don’t know if it is really the right thing to share yet. I think some people are looking for a standard.
Group 4: Continuous Learning and Improvement
http://nationalalliance.pbwiki.com/22309-Group-4%3A-Continuous-Learning-and-Improvement
Having listened to this, I have a question. We discussed the role of this group as a convener of these topics. We asked the question of agreeing but I wonder if we need a working group for that. We need to involve people who are not in this room.
MK: Make sure I understand. This is around quality assurance?
A: Yes.
Comment: I’m a bit worry and cognizant of the forest for the trees issue here. When Carol commented on the history of this and embracing maintenance of competence and how it can be addressed in a number of ways. There are so many ways that this is addressed by so many different people.
I think this PI self-assessment needs another way to think about this. We need to pair up some organizations. I could see FSMB and the boards getting together with the hospitals as one unit. Then we can talk about P for fee which is a moving target. I would stage it in.
Q: Do we need a group to talk about solving this?
A: Yes. We need one for tomorrow and ongoing.
Teams for Tomorrow
Michael
I know you’re tired but we have one more thing to do. Let’s decide the groups for tomorrow.
We’re going to be doing very similar things that we did today. We’re going to work in small groups, share with each other, and document our results. Because of this we can get a ton done at the en of the day. Maybe we can even go through two rounds of work.
