1 / 26

Ruta Valaitis RN, PhD Dorothy C. Hall in Primary Health Care Nursing Nursing Seminar

Crossing the Threshold: Developing University-Community Partnerships What are key features of successful University-Community Partnerships? . Ruta Valaitis RN, PhD Dorothy C. Hall in Primary Health Care Nursing Nursing Seminar Monday, May 7, 2012, 1:00-2:00 p.m.

maura
Download Presentation

Ruta Valaitis RN, PhD Dorothy C. Hall in Primary Health Care Nursing Nursing Seminar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Crossing the Threshold: Developing University-Community PartnershipsWhat are key features of successful University-Community Partnerships? Ruta Valaitis RN, PhD Dorothy C. Hall in Primary Health Care Nursing Nursing Seminar Monday, May 7, 2012, 1:00-2:00 p.m. McMaster Health Sciences Centre, Room 2J13

  2. Principles • Think community development / engagement • Think participatory design • Think PBL • Think family dynamics • Like any good partnership, where: • nurturing relationships • effective communication • participatory approaches are key!

  3. 2 Programs of Research

  4. Renewal of Public Health Systems • Co-developed research proposal with DM stakeholders • Foundation in BC was based on a CPHFRI (Core Public Health Functions Research Initiative) • ON needed to “catch up” to build a similar team structure

  5. Research Teams • Development of the research teams takes time • Decision-maker leads and academic leads identified in each province • Key supports in place with RAs as well as admin support • Launch in ON involved face-to-face event with some key team members (PIs from BC led the meeting) • ON team representation from MoHLTC, PHO, health unit managers, front line staff in programs of interest • Recruitment of team members occurred based on case study sites as well as key stakeholders

  6. 42 members

  7. AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES OF ACADEMICS AND DECISION-MAKERS IN A COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM OF RESEARCH Rebecca Spark 2011Digital Commons:http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations/6151/

  8. Enablers (Spark, 2011) “Supportive Organizational Structure and Staffing • Organized, reliable, accessible, and knowledgeable research staff • Regularly scheduled team meetings • Sufficient funding to allow for face-to-face meetings and conference travel”

  9. Enablers (Spark, 2011) “Creation of an Open, Supportive, and Flexible Research Environment • Environment that fosters open lines of communication for establishing role clarity and attaining consensus during decision-making • Team members strive to understand each other’s roles and worlds • Flexibility in meetings to allow for theoretical and practical debates” 

  10. Enablers (Spark, 2011) “Effective Communication Structures and Processes • Use of monthly newsletters, short electronic communication, and reminders regarding meetings or upcoming events • Maintaining regular ongoing communication with succinct updates, e.g., one pager summaries • Use of one single generic project email, e.g., rephs@rephs.ca”

  11. RePHS Newsletter

  12. Strategies to Support Relationship Building & Maintenance (Spark, 2011) • “Meeting face-to-face early on in the project and then as often as project funding and logistics allow”

  13. Spark, 2011 “Valuing and Respecting Team Members •  Listening to the voices of all participants in the project and incorporating suggestions into research process • Informing decision-maker partners of research opportunities internal and external to project • Research staff and principal investigators are aware of and appropriately utilize skill sets brought to team” 

  14. TOPHC Conference Abstract Panel with DM partners and others

  15. Challenges (Spark, 2011) Challenging Individual Demands • “Individual workload demands impact time available for project”

  16. Challenges (Spark, 2011) “Challenging Structures and Processes at the Team Level • Melding of research and practice perspectives and worlds • Communication structures not used to full capacity, e.g., SharePoint website • Difference between research and practice languages impacts communication” • And....

  17. Challenges (Spark, 2011) • “Decision-making with a large, geographically dispersed group • Role clarity and expectations for individual or organizational participation not established at project outset • Making sure every member of the team feels engaged and motivated”

  18. (Spark, 2011) “Structures and Processes that Could Be Improved • Frequent research updates that are framed for target audience and succinct • Include more information related to research updates in monthly newsletters”

  19. One pagers

  20. Spark, 2011 “Structures and Processes that Could Be Improved • Principal Investigators or research staff ‘check-in’ regularly with individual team members • Establish role clarity early in project and re-visit and provide feedback on roles and contributions throughout project”

  21. Spark, 2011 “Mechanisms to Carry Project Momentum Forward • Large group face-to-face meeting to re-visit original research plan, revise and edit and create a plan for moving forward”

  22. Implications for Researchers • Investment of time for partnerships is essential • This can result in loss of time in building and maintaining relationships on the home front resulting in: • “I haven’t seen you in ages!” • “What are you doing these days anyway?” • It means less time for other scholarly activities. • Major rewards: uptake and valuing of research by knowledge users

  23. President’s Taskforce on Community Engagement • “Principle 2. The University will value collaborative research activities with community stakeholders. • Objectives: • To ensure that research excellence is informed by, supports and/or is facilitated by the community • To promote effective, reciprocal knowledge exchange with the community • To enhance excellence and innovation in our research within our communities” • http://www.mcmaster.ca/presidentsoffice/documents/PP_CE_final.pdf

  24. Strategies and Recommendations: “a) Link Community engagement (CE) with research priorities i. Revise institutional policies for management of research funding and related financial arrangements intended to address gaps in Tri‐Council policies so that wherever possible McMaster policies recognize and support CE ii. Integrate within hiring and reward structures for faculty b) Facilitate knowledge exchange with the community i. Create opportunities for reciprocal dialogue ii. Ensure transmission of research compilations to the community iii. Through tenure and promotion, reward researchers who participate in community engaged scholarship and/ or integrated knowledge exchange activities c) Facilitate training and support for students and faculty to engage in Participatory Action Research (PAR) • d) Create a mechanism for reimbursing community stakeholders for research participation’ • http://www.mcmaster.ca/presidentsoffice/documents/PP_CE_final.pdf

More Related