Sarah K
Sue W
Michael M
Gonzalo B
Danny S
Alan G
John G
Deb L

1.      Minutes (Deb)

2.      Seal update (Alan)

  • we’re considering 4-3 tents of the seal
  • Advisory council aspirational
  • Elise Singer MD MBA getting looped in
  • John evaluating the tech to execute this – Fred Trotter has something he’s developing we’ll get a proposal by the next meeting

x.      MotherKnows (Alan)

  • A potential corporate member – donating and encouraging $30 for each of their members to join

3.      Strategic planning update (Sarah)

  • Evolving into a more evidence based organization that provides value add to members and corporate stakeholders through a research exchange . Where is the evidence that participatory medicine works? Literature bank will serve as a hub for existing literature that supports how things like patient engagement can translate into improved patient:HCP communication, leading to improved quality of care, outcomes, and lower costs, for instance.

4.      Lenox Hill Patient Experience update (Sarah and Danny)

Based on patient satisfaction survey, they wanted to develop an interactive curriculum to enhance the patient experience. They would like SPM and IHI (contacted by Lenox Hill) to develop a Patient Experience Curriculum for incoming residents by August. Ideally we could develop this into a replicable set of seminars where we HIRE SPM members and develop a revenue stream around spreading our message. We have yet to develop the details around the agreement. How do we become an indispensable piece of this relationship and protect our domain knowledge for derivative products.

Sue and Michael: Based on the publicly available information, what type of partnership might we expect from IHI and how can we best position SPM?

Deb: Tangential thought: We’re starting to see an increase in “patient centric” groups. It’s becoming harder to tell which groups are aligned with patient goals. As a result, SPM might find itself needing to take a stronger stance on particular issues and, to Michel’s point, picking it’s partners carefully.

Sue: We should not miss out on this incredible opportunity – especially coming from a health system

Michael: we could really showcase our strength of patient clinician partnership with this approach – this is not just another one off seminar and SPM has something truly unique – we’re ALL about the patient.

5.      Executive director (Danny, Sarah, John)

  • John to draft up job description

6.      Year in review collation (Deb)

  • Deb to propose plan of action

7.      HIMSS partnership discussion (Sarah)

  • HIMSS non-profit application for groups that might help them become more patient centric. If we put together a resource kit, webinars, or other patient empowerment tools they could help sponsor
  • But then again so can other groups that might allow SPM more autonomy

8.      Establishing an evidence base repository (All)

Mendeley as a way to share documents and involve members in literature review process. We’d ultimately like to create a literature bank. (Gonzalo)

Sue: The issue of collating SPM-relevant evidence is very important. Lots of studies are out there –  in a variety of places and with a variety of ‘quality’

What are our goals with this? Perhaps: (1) informing members, so they can use the literature to advocate/inform, and (2) use the literature as part of ‘new’ endeavors, such as educating residents

Deb: We want something that all of our members can contribute to and, in the future, someone can later go through the papers and edit for quality. We’ll evaluate the user-generated “publish first edit later” approach.