Community Information Exchange (CIE) Network Partner Meeting · 2020. 12. 23. · Slides...

1

Community Information Exchange (CIE)Network Partner Meeting

December 2020

This slide deck has been updated to include participant input from the

December 10 meeting.

Slides documenting input from the chat, meeting polls, and verbal

participation have been integrated into the deck. All input has been

included word-for-word, but responses are anonymous.

3

Land Acknowledgement

4

Move your mouse/cursor over the bottom of the Zoom screen.When the black control panel appears, select the desired panel.

Open Participants and/or Chat box

How To ParticipateRaise your hand or provide nonverbal feedback in Participants Panel

Type questions and comments in Chat box

(Phone: *9 to raise hand)

Speak by hovering over the mic next to your name and clicking Unmute in the Participants Panel

(Phone: *6 to un/mute)

Type here, click Enter to send

Select recipient

This meeting is being recorded

5

Introductions & check-in

Review of draft plan feedback

Review of evaluation input and next steps

Next steps

Close

Agenda

6

Where We Are in the Design Process (Part 1)

What we have done(July-August-September-October-November - December)

Updated CIE vision Prioritized desired long-term CIE

functionality Identified and confirmed privacy and

technology “ideal state” recommendationsDetermined Advisory Group sector

representation Revised Network Partner Workgroup

Charter Selected a name for the CIE: Connect2

Community

Gained input on how to measure CIE success

Draft community & consumer engagement plan

Develop financial sustainability planGathered input on community & consumer

engagement plans Started discussion on the equity planGathered feedback on the full draft plan

from clinical & community partners Conduct legal review of draft plan

7

Where We Are in the Design Process (Part 2)

What we have to do(December)

• Select Advisory Group• Build CIE website• Complete revisions based on clinical and

community partner feedback of draft plan

What we have to do(2021)

• Gather consumer feedback on CIE design & implementation

• Discuss interoperability with vendors• Draft evaluation plan• Integrate tribal data sovereignty practices

into design and implementation

8

Introducing New Members of Community Information Exchange Team

Sully MorenoCommunity Engagement Manager, CIE

Jaspreet MalhotraNetwork Manager, CIE

9

Please share in the chat:

– Your name, your pronouns, your organization

– Share a winter activity or tradition that you enjoy

Introductions

10

• Kevin Jones, Sisters in Common• Michael Woo, Kin On Health Care Center• Maryellen Pistalu, WestCare Washington• Catherine Anderson, Evergreen Treatment

Services• Sarah Green, King County Housing Authority• Nikkol Wymer, Employment Security

Department• Lauren Rigert, Crisis Connections• Sharon Scott, Evergreen Treatment Services• Peter Drury, Wellspring Family Services• Rebecca Fraynt, SEIU 775 Benefits Group

• Thyda Ross, Khmer Community of Seattle King County

• Heidi Shepherd, North Urban Human Services Alliance

• Leila Webb, Upower• Jessica Juarez Wagner, United Indians• Anna Hughes, King County DCHS• Randy Steckel, Sisters in Common• Allison Boll, Aging and Disability Services• Andy Chan, Seattle Housing Authority• Michelle Sabia, Multicare• Deborah Lumba, Association of Zambians in

Seattle, Washington

Attendees for the December Network Partners Meeting

11




Next steps

Close

Agenda

12

Gathering feedback on the draft plan

We gathered feedback on the draft plan in three main ways

Gathered feedback on the consumer and

community engagement plan in our

November Network Partner Workgroup

Meeting

Made the draft plan available online and provided a simple

online form to gather feedback

Volunteers and consultants conducted a “deep dive” review

and provided comments via google docs and a meeting

13

Thank you to the deep dive team!

• Lauren Rigert, Crisis Connections• Donald Lachman, WAServes• Allison Boll, Aging & Disability Services, City of Seattle• Lorraine Miyanda, AZISWA• Mo Chatta, AZISWA• Kevin Jones, Sisters in Common• Randy Steckel, Sisters in Common• Becky Frayant, SEIU 775 Benefits Group• Lenny Sanchez, UW• Kate Elias, Southwest Youth & Family Services• Julie Romero, Neighborhood House• Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, Indigenous Data Sovereignty

expert• Ogden Murphy Wallace law firm

Deep dive team members Key outputs

• 80+ comments• Comments fell in to three categories:

• Questions we don’t have the answer for yet, but will note in the plan as “questions that need answering” in 2021 and beyond

• Questions we were able to answer directly (and then work to better articulate)

• Questions / comments that led us to add elements or integrate new ideas into the plan

We will review key themes with you today

14

Vision/ScopeWhat We Heard How It Was Integrated Into the Plan

Benefits to individuals and families should include engagement (in addition to access) and a focus on outcomes, not just outputs

Adjusted benefits section to include engagement and a definition of success measured in how well we can address an individual’s needs (not just the number of referrals)

Are key operating principles “requirements”?

Clarified that key operating principles are not requirements, but instead inform and guide our work. Clarified we need a process to ensure accountability to these principles.

More appropriately reflect the role of tribes in the Connect2 Community Network

Added that the Connect2 Community Network should follow tribal law (in addition to state and federal laws) and data (with client authorization) could be made available to tribes

More emphasis on reducing health disparities as a “system” level goal Added a principle related to reducing health disparities

Clarify and contextualize the recommendation related to not collecting sensitive information

Clarified that a full list of sensitive information would be developed by Network Partners in 2021 and that training would be necessary to ensure this recommendation was followed. Also added a section on training later in the report.

15

Vision/Scope: Clarifying Questions & Poll

Please write into the chat or come off mute:

Do you have any clarifying questions about this section?

Please complete the in-meeting poll:

Are you supportive of the changes that were made to this section?

16

Community Input: Are you supportive of the changes made to this section?

From Zoom Poll at Dec 10 meeting

14

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Yes, I am supportive of the changes

Other

17

Vision/Scope: Follow up Question


What other considerations should we hold related to vision / scope?

18

I am impressed by these updates and evolutions ~ Great work and definitely support

I am the “other”, and it was more about the language. The vision to an extent creates a high-level contract with respect to the work to be done and some parts of it are relatively loose. So, the only reason I wrote other “other” is I think if we have the ability to tighten up the language so we have a clear definition of what it is we’re going to do and more particularly what we’re not going to do, I think we can save ourselves a lot of trouble down the road.

Community Input: What other considerations should we hold related to vision/scope?

From chat and verbal comments at Dec 10 Meeting

19

GovernanceWhat We Heard How It Was Integrated Into the Plan

There is an important difference between native- serving organizations and tribal governments. The latter are sovereign nations. They must be engaged separately

These were listed out separately in the membership section for the Advisory Group to reflect these differences

IT and data experts are differentAmended language for the Legal, Data, and Technology Workgroup and these two are named as two distinct experts to clarify the distinction

Meeting roles are addressed for the Unite Us Workgroup, but not for the others

Added language to clarify who is responsible for convening meetings, setting agendas and building engagement for existing workgroups. Identified plans to engage a small group of interested partners to guide meeting agendas and inform structures that support engagement

20

Governance: Clarifying Questions & Poll





21



15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16


22

Governance: Follow up Question


What other considerations should we hold related to governance?

23

PrivacyWhat We Heard How It Was Integrated Into the Plan

It may be important to establish privacy standards that are more restrictive than “consensus” recommendations of LDT

Added that (1) governance will ultimately determine all requirements and that (2) participants may choose to be more restrictive in their own practices

Need to be explicit about what sensitive personal information won’t be collected by the Network

Added that governance will develop a list of personal data that may be collected to which the Network will comply

Privacy requirements need to be extended to and be enforced by software; software must be and remain in compliance with laws and regulations by their effective dates

Added that privacy agreements will require that established security standards and legal requirements must be supported by software if it is to be integrated with the Network

24

PrivacyWhat We Heard How It Was Integrated Into the Plan

Agreements among Network participants need to extend beyond privacy to also specify requirements for quality of service

Added service level agreements and inclusiveness as topics included in the Participation Agreement

Need to honor Tribal Sovereignty throughout CIE activities and policies

Added tribal identifier and enrollment status to demographic data that would be collected with client permision; added compliance with tribal law to privacy requirements; expanded description CIE compliance with Tribal Sovereignty in plan

25

Privacy: Clarifying Questions & Poll





26



16

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Other

27

Privacy: Follow up Question


What other considerations should we hold related to privacy?

28

I’d like us to make a distinction between whether it’s a yay or nay on the changes to the privacy policy that are presented vs. the entire privacy policy. When I acted as part of the review team, my focus was almost solely on technology, so I did not review some areas as closely as I’d like. Perhaps if there is another review, a shorter review, since people who reviewed had the chance to read through the whole document, we could ask the question that’s in the chat of those folks to look at the entire thing vs. just the changes. Because as the questions, comments in the document were responded to I’m sure there may have been some significant changes, but I don’t know that everyone who was involved has had a chance to look at them. I know I haven’t.

– Answer: Clarification that the poll question refers to just the changes being shared at the meeting. The work plan is online for those who wish to read through the entire document with the recommended changes implemented. The plan is a living document, and recommendations and changes can continue to occur over time.

For documentation purposes, I’d ask that the question be asked in this case “Do you have any clarifying questions about the privacy section?” to “Do you have any clarifying questions about the changes to the privacy section?” And in the poll “Do you recommend the changes made” because what it basically assumes if I didn’t know what was going on, that everyone on this call had read the entire privacy section and not just the changes. So, if somebody comes back to this a year or two from now, they’re clear on what we did do and what we didn’t do.

– Open ended questions were updated per this suggestion throughout the rest of the meeting. Poll question was already focused on the recommended changes, so no change was needed for the poll questions.

Community Input: What other considerations should we hold related to privacy?

From verbal comments at Dec 10 Meeting

29

TechnologyWhat We Heard How It Was Integrated Into the Plan

Need to be more explicit about what data care team members can access in future iterations

Will work on specific role-based or similar data access requirements in 2021

Concerned about providing access to any and all shared data, even on clients not obtaining services from a partner; should consider accessing data through APIs rather than ETL

Adjusted to support and only allow access to data for a single newly-referred client or for the specific list of clients an organization is serving and with whom it already has a relationship

Need to consider low-tech access such as through a portal or via a “human-powered” access point

Planning on exploring a portal option and will consider other low-tech mechanisms in co-design discussions in 2021

30

Technology: Clarifying Questions & Poll





31



17

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


32

Technology: Follow up Question


What other considerations should we hold related to technology?

33

I know at an earlier stage in the process there was some concern about connectivity, API connectivity and other connectivity, across, like obviously there are multiple CIEs, HealthierHere in this process developing kind of a master CIE, but there are many CIEs developing, and they will in years to come for specific populations. Can you comment on technology, just if there’s been any evolution of thinking or not, either way is ok I’m just curious, about the connectivity. Cause that’s, as we develop our CIE, which is focused on family homelessness specifically, we’ve been concerned that we wouldn’t be able to connect. I use this as an example, has there been an evolution or is there still going to be kind of like a firewall?

– Answer: Our intent is for anyone who wants to participate and is able to uphold privacy requirements to participate. There will be a variety of entry-points, including a low-tech entry point through extract-load-transform (ETL), which is akin to sending spreadsheets back and forth. API connectivity will be another option that will allow more real-time access to specific pieces of data. This flexibility will add complexity to the unified network, but HealthierHere believes this is a requirement to make sure everyone who wants to participate is able to participate.

Community Input: What other considerations should we hold related to privacy?


34

Community & Consumer EngagementWhat We Heard How It Was Integrated Into the Plan

Need to better integrate accessibility into the plan

Defined accessibility as eliminating barriers to participation and plainly explaining expected commitments. Incorporated the concept into principles, added an accessibility assessment to planned community engagement activities, and clarified that accessibility will also guide consumer engagement.

Incorporate the concept of empowerment and a strengths-based approach into the plan

Noted that consumers will be engaged in culturally relevant and responsive ways, and that community members will be supported to channel their power into creating a network that benefits them.

Need to seek out communityAdded targeted outreach to planned community engagement activities, emphasizing that we will conduct tailored outreach to communities who are not currently at the planning table.

Confirming alignment among partners on values and vision is a long-term process

Incorporated into the principle of building long-term relationships and as a component of bringing new organizations into the network.

35


Better explaining that meeting community where they are goes beyond physical space

Clarified that meeting community where they are includes respecting the level of participation that is feasible for community based on current mental and emotional capacity

Should create a list of every organization that works with existing partners

Added a continuation of coverage mapping with existing partners who wish to map their networks to planned community engagement activities

Partners will require support to start using new technology

Added a section on technical assistance and training, which will include training frontline staff to use new technology

Network usage should be monitored to ensure support is being funneled in the right places

Explained that network monitoring will be an ongoing component of the work

Distinction needed between outreach activities meant to share information and gather input

Clarified in community engagement section that outreach activities will be conducted to share information, whereas consumer engagement activities are meant to gather input

36


Outreach must be flexible and adapt to the depth of information partners require

Added the creation of a variety of tools and resources to fit the ways partners prefer to work with their networks to planned community engagement activities

Consumers should be able to provide input on how the network benefits them

Added this point to the list of areas to gather consumer input

Consumer input must shape the network to increase adoption among community organizations

Articulated that through consumer engagement we will collect input that can be shared with potential partners to encourage their adoption of the network. Added that in 2021, consumer engagement can surface which use cases may be most relevant to the populations served by network partners.

Further examine the use of the word consumer

Clarified that the word “consumer” has been chosen since it is commonly understood in the industry. However, recognized that partners may choose to use different words within their organizations and when engaging directly with the individuals in the community.

37

Equity PlanWhat We Heard How It Was Integrated Into the Plan

Nearly three-quarters of attendees at the most recent meeting indicated there is room to better embed equity in the Connect2 Community Network

We commit to make space for additional conversation on this topic in 2021, and to continue to evolve the plan as the conversation continues

Address identities that impact health outcomes in addition to race

Introduced the concept of intersectionality to address race AND all other identities that impact health outcomes

38

Community & Consumer Engagement: Clarifying Questions & Poll





39



15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16


40

Community & Consumer Engagement: Follow up Question


What other considerations should we hold related to community & consumer engagement?

41

Additional sections

• There were no comments or feedback on the Financial Sustainability and Workplan sections

• Corrections to the appendices were made based on comments

• Overall, feedback provided to rationalize the size of the report as we move forward

42

Overall Plan


What other considerations should we hold as this plan continues to evolve?


Assuming we make the adjustments noted today, are you supportive of this plan?

43

I appreciate that our feedback was accurately included and built into the plan. Thank you!

Should there be a separate (fast) round of review for the sections that did not have comments?

– Answer: We did receive comments from reviewers stating they liked these two sections, and therefore didn't have any comments. So, we do know that folx reviewed these sections. And, we want to reiterate that this is an iterative plan, so we will have a process to review the plan and collect feedback on the plan at standard intervals moving forward.

Community Input: Any additional thoughts/comments on the plan that you want to bring into this space today?

From Chat at Dec 10 Meeting

44

My concern is about coverage of the plan itself, like were there eyes looking at it and taking a critical view. I could have reviewed areas in finance or governance, but that wasn’t the best priority use of my time given the limited amount of time that was available and the size of the document. So, I guess if we could get some confirmation at some point as part of the review process, that when a reviewer does review a section to note which section they reviewed, so we can actually see how many folks took a look at all these different sections to make sure that we did get some reasonable coverage. That’s not a big ask when you’re dealing with a 100-page document, to say that you looked at a section of 25 or 30 pages.

I don’t know if it’s clearly stated, whether or not we can be referring clients under the age of 18 without a parent’s permission. Or incarcerated youth. So, I just think that’s something that needs to be considered, people who are involved in the criminal justice system who need important access to resources after their time is spent. I would just like to throw that one out there to where we could put that in, it should probably be considered. And legally, too, I don’t know if that’s a question for the legal team, what is the legality and parameters around this. It’s a very protected population, obviously, so I just want to make sure that there’s some verbiage in here about those populations so that everyone is clear.

– Answer: We have referred this question to our legal counsel, who has advised us on how to integrated language in the plan that specifies what consent processes are required for individuals under the age of 18.



45

So, on sustainability, a little bit on financial sustainability, but even one degree broader, kinda like economic sustainability, not just financial. One of the assumptions that I know has come up in some of the prior conversations in past months and one we kind of wrestle with in our own process that I just want to make sure, and please talk me off this ledge if you’ve already settled this, but in the whole idea of a CIE we’re talking about optimizing referrals is kind of like at the heart of this, right? And there can be an assumption that for example the social services sector, the human services sector, has capacity to take on more referrals. And I would say that by and large being a human services agency, we were all over bandwidth before COVID, but there’s excellent research out of the University of Washington and a few other places right now that we’re doing triple, quadruple, and at the same time the funding falls and everything else.

This isn’t a funding question, but I want to say that for context. So, in terms of sustainability, I know that something we’re managing for in our process is to not make the assumption that just because we can optimize referrals, doesn’t mean we just kick a problem downstream and then overwhelm the next players. So, when the sustainability question comes up, I know for some people it’s about the funding of this system, but there are so many constraints in the social service world in terms of government contracts and things about how we can accept referrals, who we can and cannot accept and all that, and since that’s come up in some prior review meetings and partner conversations, I didn’t literally hear it here and maybe somehow I just missed it. Do you have a high-level comment on that, because just for the ultimate success of the CIE, we’re going to have to know that the social service sector can actually help as opposed to just have healthcare just sending referrals of to social services thinking there’s capacity, cause we all know in human services that we’re far under capacity, and that’s not a tiny comment, that’s a big comment.

– Answer: The financial sustainability scope in the work plan does not address this broader issue, but Network Partners have discussed and grappled with this issue a bit. Practically, we have integrated the ability of partner organizations to control how many referrals they receive, so that no one organization gets overwhelmed. However, the broader issue of resource allocation and system-level support for social services in our community should be a topic of regular discussion. I like the idea of making reference to it in the plan, and committing to discuss it in more detail in 2021.



46

Community Input: Assuming we make the adjustments noted today, are you supportive of this plan?


15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Yes, I am supportive of this plan

47

Overall Plan


Any additional thoughts / comments on the plan that you want to bring into space today?

48




Next steps

Close

AgendaThis section was not presented or discussed due to time constraints

49

Based on your feedback, core values of any evaluation approach must include:• Centering participant experience• Emphasis on qualitative storytelling• Centering equity• Protecting and honoring privacy

What we heard from you: evaluation valuesThis section was not presented or discussed due to time constraints

50

• Quick, low barrier connections to service

• No wrong door• Access to

culturally/geographically appropriate care and services

• Needs not only identified, but also met in a timely and effective manner

• Awareness of resources• Low barrier access • Streamlined processes/workflows• Less duplication for providers and

participants • Awareness of entire participant need• Access to post-referral data

• How to use system to highlight allocation of resources and/or needs

• Inform community planning, policy and investment

• Identify unmet needs and barriers

• Definition and tracking of improvement for participants and providers (may be different)

• Breaking down care silos and data silos

Values: Centering participant experience, qualitative storytelling, centering equity, protecting and honoring privacy

DESI

RED

RESU

LTPO

PULA

TIO

N

Participants Providers Community

What we heard from you: what success looks likeThis section was not presented or discussed due to time constraints

51

Is there anything missing that you expected to see?

Is there anything you see that you think should be changed or removed?

DiscussionThis section was not presented or discussed due to time constraints

52

• Quick, low barrier connections to service

• No wrong door• Access to culturally/geographically

appropriate care and services• Needs not only identified, but also met

in a timely and effective manner

• Awareness of resources• Low barrier access • Streamlined processes/workflows• Less duplication for providers and participants • Awareness of entire participant need• Access to post-referral data

• How to use system to highlight allocation of resources and/or needs

• Inform community planning, policy and investment

• Identify unmet needs and barriers• Definition and tracking of improvement for

participants and providers (may be different)

• Breaking down care silos and data silos

How much did we do?How well did we do it?How are participants better off?

How much did we do?How well did we do it?How are providers better off?

How much did we do?How well did we do it?How is the community better off?

Values: Centering participant experience, qualitative storytelling, centering equity, protecting and honoring privacyDE

SIRE

DRE

SULT

STRA

TEG

IES/

AC

TIVI

TIES

Participants Providers Community

PERF

ORM

ANCE

M

EASU

RES

NEXT STEPS

POPU

LATI

ON

This section was not presented or discussed due to time constraints

53

• Establish ad hoc group to deep-dive on evaluation planning

• Meetings will focus on a variety of topics, including:o Establishing the CIE’s “sphere of influence” o Agreement on what makes a “good” performance measureo Brainstorm “how much,” “how well,” and “better off” measures for the three

stakeholder groupso Initial planning for data collection approach

• Recommendations will be brought back to NPG for review/feedback

• Interested in joining the evaluation workgroup? Please let us know in the chat or by emailing [email protected]

Next Steps for EvaluationThis section was not presented or discussed due to time constraints

mailto:[email protected]

54




Next steps

Close

Agenda

55

Improve the effectiveness of Network Partner Workgroup meetings

Give you more engagement in agenda setting

Today – quick poll on the frequency:

Poll on Network Partner Workgroup Meetings

What meeting frequency do you prefer?• Monthly• Every 6 weeks• Every other month• Quarterly• Other

56

Community Input: What meeting frequency do you prefer?From Zoom Poll at Dec 10 meeting

1

2

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Every other month

Quarterly

Monthly

Every 6 weeks

57

Next Steps & Ways to Participate in the Plan Review

Next Steps & Ways to Participate Upcoming Events to Join

Community Catalyst Fund

Application release date November 19, 2020

Applications due (apply here) January 8, 2021 by 5:00 pm PST

Awards announced On or before January 29, 2020

Please send any questions [email protected]

Network Partner Workgroup: TBD based on input from this meeting

Legal, Data, Technology Workgroup: February 2, 9:00-10:30 am (register)

Tribal Sovereignty and Health Webinar:

January 20, 10:00-11:30 (register)

Unite Us Information Session:(this is a repeat if you have attended an information session)

December 15, 9:00-10:00 (register)

https://www.healthierhere.org/cie-planning/catalyst-fund/

mailto:[email protected]

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZ0ocu6qpzMsG9eh12rSypFHKAZgRBpzd8XH

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAodu2trzksGdaiYYeWqMpCBYWGIFZ9l91Z

https://uniteus.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJ0kd--trzkoGtAiX45d1Kph4IPtmc9HvXEM

58

Please write into the chat:

What are you hopeful for in 2021?

Check-out

Community Information Exchange (CIE) Network Partner Meeting · 2020. 12. 23. · Slides...

Documents

Transcript of Community Information Exchange (CIE) Network Partner Meeting · 2020. 12. 23. · Slides...