Search all of the Society for Participatory Medicine website:Search

Participants:  Geri Baumblatt, Dave DeBronkart, Peter Elias, John Grohol, Matthew Holt, Janice McCallum, Jan Oldenburg, Danny Sands, Joe Ternullo, Sue Woods

Minutes from September 25, 2018 meeting approved.

Conference redux – Board reactions/assessment of process and results, and initial suggestion of path forward for 2019

Joe Ternullo kicked off the discussion with comment about the all around positive response he received from numerous attendees and via the conference evaluation survey. He believes that getting on HIMSS registration site early was helpful and that the event raised awareness of the goals of S4PM.

Janice McCallum commented that the patient stories are fantastic for engaging the audience, but wants to connect these stories to actions that a range of patients and caregivers can take.

Jan Oldenburg reinforced Janice’s comment about how the themes of the conference translate to action. What is future vision? Not to take away from how great the day was and how well it turned out, but for next year, we should focus on sessions that help people make sense of things from an actionable point of view.  Beyond what they can do for S4PM; what they can do on their own.

Geri Baumblatt commented that it is obvious that people liked connecting, meeting like-minded people. But how do we grow the next generation. How can people get involved in S4PM and participatory medicine? In a larger sense, where are we going/building on the community?

Danny Sands observed that this year’s conference included a lot of “patient stuff”,  but left out the physician’s perspective to deliver a dose of the reality of physicians’ world?

Danny further stated that along with increasing awareness of S4PM, one other goal of the conference is the opportunity to raise funds for S4PM.

Matthew Holt noted that many conferences are focused on fundraising. We can engage a variety of interested parties via the conference, then follow-up for sponsorships. He recommends we have dedicated areas to sponsor and that we approach companies for next year as soon as the day of the conference, since budgets for the following year are typically set by end-of-year.

Danny’s proposal: Tag Janice & Matthew to meet to talk about strategy for corporate sponsorships in follow-on conference call.

John Grohol pointed out that we had some breakdown in communications about sponsorships for SPM2018. Some sponsors weren’t in the official document & other board members didn’t know about it. Also, he noted that we should have more clear levels of sponsorship and abide by them as much as possible.

Danny responded that there were last-minute changes in the agenda & the website wasn’t updated. He asked that all comments be added to the Google Doc that Judy set up for comments on the conference:

Joe Ternullo recommends we tighten things up in the future so volunteer group is better coordinated & more suited to their roles.

Dave deBronkart said he has hesitated to complain about anything, since SPM has advanced so much in the past couple of years. But, he thinks we need to more clearly delineate who is in charge and we need to start planning the agenda earlier.

Danny agreed that too many people were weighing in on every decision, which impeded progress.

Sue Woods commented that it’s difficult to expect so much devoted time commitment from a group of busy volunteers. She recommends that we would step back and ask if this type of conference is the best use of our time.

Leadership candidates (link to list of potential candidates). Discuss timetable to close list, evaluate candidates, set election.

Danny emphasized that making progress on electing new board members is becoming increasingly critical; we need to identify candidates to run for executive offices, especially  President-elect & Treasurer.

Jan asked for clarification of the governance process.  According to bylaws, the Past President leads the process and the executives committee vets candidates.

Danny stated that we are not wedded to the current process and recommends we work together to make it better.  All board members can recommend candidates & he would like to have pool of candidates in the next 2 weeks.

John Grohol has interviewed a couple of candidates for Treasurer, but so far, none are qualified enough.

Jan suggested we spell out what we want for skills of board members. What is it that we’re missing at present? Where are gaps? Let’s try to fill those gaps.

Danny responded that he has focused more on ability to work with the other board members contribute to our mission & initiatives. He also mentioned that we need more diversity on the board.

Corporate relationships – building on momentum and growing corporate membership.

Janice & Matthew will follow-up with Danny.

We already have a commitment from ACR for 2019. PLM is excited to be a corporate member. We may be able to keep UPMC.  And, the Mitchell Foundation (Tom Ferguson’s widow’s foundation) grant is annually renewable.

Note, we will need sponsorship for Learning Exchange for 2019 if Accenture & Vocera don’t re-up.

Peter Elias expressed concerned that our focus on corporate sponsorship is the flip-side of being patient-focused. As we have become more active and have taken on more initiatives, we’ve sought board members with skills associated with those initiatives. As Board member-at-large, Peter wants us to carefully consider if we are representing the objectives of broader membership with increased emphasis on sponsorship-attracting activities.

Jan Oldenburg concurred and suggested we need a broader conversation about our mission and what initiatives are most relevant to our objectives; there may be other kinds of activities besides conferences that reinforce our mission.

Peter said that if our mission is culture change, the next step is to have conversation about known ways to change culture. We need to have that conversation.

Janice suggested that that topic could be the focus of the November Townhall.

Jan pointed out that we need to ask members what they need. It’s a question of whether our membership has the resources they need. Do they feel they have access to the right resources to help effect change on their own.

Peter: will commit to getting something posted to Connect re: Townhall.

2019 planning – scheduling date and location for retreat

The plan is to schedule the retreat after new officers/board have been elected. Joe said he can get a meeting room at Cambridge Innovation Center (CIC) or we could meet at his house and he asked if we should get a facilitator for the 2019 retreat.

Danny suggested that we may need 2 days: one day of strategy; one day of tactics.

Peter advocated for an enforcer after the fact, rather than a facilitator.

Joe thinks the preferred solution is a facilitator who is involved after the meetings.

Very tentative dates for the retreat: January 26-27.

Adjourn — Next board meeting November 27, 2018 at 4:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Janice McCallum
SPM Board Secret