Leadership in Action: The Role and Impact of the CHCF Health Care Leadership Program s California Health Improvement Project (CHIP)

Similar documents
The development of our plan began with our current mission and vision statements, which follow. "Enhancing Louisiana's Health and Environment"

UIC HEALTH SCIENCE COLLEGES

Student Admissions, Outcomes, and Other Data

CAMPUS PROFILE MEET OUR STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS. The average age of undergraduates is 21; 78% are 22 years or younger.

Graduate Division Annual Report Key Findings

STEM Academy Workshops Evaluation

IMPACTFUL, QUANTIFIABLE AND TRANSFORMATIONAL?

Los Angeles City College Student Equity Plan. Signature Page

Effective Recruitment and Retention Strategies for Underrepresented Minority Students: Perspectives from Dental Students

Strategic Plan Revised November 2012 Reviewed and Updated July 2014

PUBLIC INFORMATION POLICY

University-Based Induction in Low-Performing Schools: Outcomes for North Carolina New Teacher Support Program Participants in

Status of Women of Color in Science, Engineering, and Medicine

Executive Summary. DoDEA Virtual High School

Student Support Services Evaluation Readiness Report. By Mandalyn R. Swanson, Ph.D., Program Evaluation Specialist. and Evaluation

Section 1: Program Design and Curriculum Planning

Worldwide Online Training for Coaches: the CTI Success Story

Building a Vibrant Alumni Network

California State University, Los Angeles TRIO Upward Bound & Upward Bound Math/Science

Facts and Figures Office of Institutional Research and Planning

Response to the Review of Modernising Medical Careers

Strategic Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Measures

Executive Summary. Gautier High School

Cooper Upper Elementary School

Kannapolis City Schools 100 DENVER STREET KANNAPOLIS, NC

Nottingham Trent University Course Specification

Demographic Survey for Focus and Discussion Groups

RCPCH MMC Cohort Study (Part 4) March 2016

Common Core Postsecondary Collaborative

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

The Impact of Postgraduate Health Technology Innovation Training: Outcomes of the Stanford Biodesign Fellowship

Iowa School District Profiles. Le Mars

Leadership Development at

Pathways to Health Professions of the Future

CONNECTICUT GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATOR EVALUATION. Connecticut State Department of Education

Examples of Individual Development Plans (IDPs)

Assessment System for M.S. in Health Professions Education (rev. 4/2011)

Lincoln School Kathmandu, Nepal

Educational Attainment

SECTION I: Strategic Planning Background and Approach

Adult Education ACCE Presentation. Neil Kelly February 2, 2017

Delaware Performance Appraisal System Building greater skills and knowledge for educators

IS FINANCIAL LITERACY IMPROVED BY PARTICIPATING IN A STOCK MARKET GAME?

IMSH 2018 Simulation: Making the Impossible Possible

Final. Developing Minority Biomedical Research Talent in Psychology: The APA/NIGMS Project

Cooper Upper Elementary School

MYP Language A Course Outline Year 3

Cultivating an Enriched Campus Community

Saint Louis University Program Assessment Plan. Program Learning Outcomes Curriculum Mapping Assessment Methods Use of Assessment Data

Math Pathways Task Force Recommendations February Background

NCEO Technical Report 27

E C C. American Heart Association. Basic Life Support Instructor Course. Updated Written Exams. February 2016

Karla Brooks Baehr, Ed.D. Senior Advisor and Consultant The District Management Council

Quantitative Study with Prospective Students: Final Report. for. Illinois Wesleyan University Bloomington, Illinois

SASKATCHEWAN MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

An Analysis of PharmD Industry Fellowships

2018 Great Ideas Conference SAMPLE SUBMISSION FORM

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Temple University 2016 Results

MMC: The Facts. MMC Conference 2006: the future of specialty training

Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Plan (SECP)

Audit Of Teaching Assignments. An Integrated Analysis of Teacher Educational Background and Courses Taught October 2007

ADDIE: A systematic methodology for instructional design that includes five phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.

Abstract. Janaka Jayalath Director / Information Systems, Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission, Sri Lanka.

PREPARING FOR THE SITE VISIT IN YOUR FUTURE

Shelters Elementary School

Interprofessional educational team to develop communication and gestural skills

Testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. John White, Louisiana State Superintendent of Education

Patient/Caregiver Surveys

PCG Special Education Brief

Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Education Case Study Results

Demystifying The Teaching Portfolio

An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Mexican American Studies Participation on Student Achievement within Tucson Unified School District

Teaching Excellence Framework

Preliminary Report Initiative for Investigation of Race Matters and Underrepresented Minority Faculty at MIT Revised Version Submitted July 12, 2007

Trends & Issues Report

Monitoring & Evaluation Tools for Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Segmentation Study of Tulsa Area Higher Education Needs Ages 36+ March Prepared for: Conducted by:

Raw Data Files Instructions

Strategy for teaching communication skills in dentistry

The patient-centered medical

National Survey of Student Engagement Spring University of Kansas. Executive Summary

Teach For America alumni 37,000+ Alumni working full-time in education or with low-income communities 86%

Strategic Plan Dashboard Results. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

GUIDE TO EVALUATING DISTANCE EDUCATION AND CORRESPONDENCE EDUCATION

Port Graham El/High. Report Card for

Supply and Demand of Instructional School Personnel

Greetings, Ed Morris Executive Director Division of Adult and Career Education Los Angeles Unified School District

Tun your everyday simulation activity into research

TRANSNATIONAL TEACHING TEAMS INDUCTION PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR COURSE / UNIT COORDINATORS

Standard 5: The Faculty. Martha Ross James Madison University Patty Garvin

Game-designed interprofessional education:

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

JAIMIE NICOLE MORSE Curriculum Vitae

Like much of the country, Detroit suffered significant job losses during the Great Recession.

Innovation of communication technology to improve information transfer during handover

File Print Created 11/17/2017 6:16 PM 1 of 10

Core Strategy #1: Prepare professionals for a technology-based, multicultural, complex world

Aurora College Annual Report

WASC Special Visit Research Proposal: Phase IA. WASC views the Administration at California State University, Stanislaus (CSUS) as primarily

Transportation Equity Analysis

Transcription:

Leadership in Action: The Role and Impact of the CHCF Health Care Leadership Program s California Health Improvement Project (CHIP) Cynthia Wides, MA; Angela Marks, MSEd; Sally Durgan, MS; Elizabeth Mertz, MA, PhD; Sunita Mutha, MD. 2013 Center for the Health Professions at UCSF ABSTRACT This report provides an overview of the CHCF Health Care Leadership Program and a summary of results from an assessment of the process and impact of a key component of the program, the California Health Improvement Project (CHIP). CHIPs are leadership projects undertaken by program participants at their home organization. Areas of impact resulting from the CHIPs, dissemination activities, and factors that contributed to the successful implementation of the CHIPs from the perspective of program alumni are described. Ongoing enhancements to the CHIP component of the program are also discussed. Introduction The California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) Health Care Leadership Program launched in 2001 to prepare clinically trained health care professionals to lead California s health delivery organizations and to create a network of strong, effective leaders to provide mutual support for improving health care for all Californians. In the program s second decade, this long-term investment in leadership development, coupled with the active cultivation and use of its alumni network, serves as a resource for health care change at the individual, organizational, regional, and statewide levels. A key component of the program is the California Health Improvement Project (CHIP), which provides each fellow an opportunity to apply newly acquired skills to improve care in their home organization. This report describes the CHCF Health Care Leadership Program and discusses the role and impact of the CHIP over seven cohorts of the program. Program Overview The program is a part-time, two-year fellowship directed by the Center for Health Professions (Center) at the University of California, San Francisco. Each cohort consists of 30 individuals who are selected through a competitive application process. Program participants are required to be clinical health professionals with five or more years of leadership experience. In their application to the program they must demonstrate professional or civic accomplishments and show a strong commitment to rigorous engagement of the challenges confronting health care in California. Each participant must also be endorsed by his or her home organization as a future leader. The fellowship is grounded in the Center s competency-based leadership model, which consists of four interlinked domains purpose, process, people, and personal. Each domain consists of a set of distinct leadership competencies (see Figure 1).

2 Figure 1: Competency-Based Leadership Model The Center's competency-based leadership model underpins the program elements (see Table 1). Through these learning activities, the participants' leadership knowledge and skills are reinforced and strengthened to increase participants ability to lead change in their organizations. The program emphasizes interactive content, and uses different teaching modalities and settings with multiple feedback loops to better allow for program and participant improvement.

3 Table 1: CHCF Health Care Leadership Program Elements Program Element Seminars Intersession Activities Pod Groups Coaching CHIP Detail Six, 4-day seminars that include didactic teaching, case studies, peer learning, and other interactive instruction methods. Readings and case studies, peer group ( pod ) interactions, telephone and web conferences, and completion of web-based tools to track development and to share progress with others. Regional groups of 4-6 fellows with an assigned advisor that provide support, feedback, and learning opportunities as fellows move through the program. Five hours of individual executive development coaching. A leadership project each fellow completes at their home organization on a topic of their choice following program guidelines. California Health Improvement Project (CHIP) In the course of the CHCF Health Care Leadership program, each participant undertakes a leadership project at their home organization known in the program as the California Health Improvement Project, or CHIP. During the first six months of the program, fellows develop the goals and objectives for their projects with the input of program faculty and staff. The CHIP must address a timely issue or challenge facing participants organizations. The CHIP illustrates how the program facilitates organizational change and improvement and provides a hands-on change management experience that both improves and demonstrates participants learning over the course of the program. Each proposed project is reviewed and assessed by program faculty, other fellows, and leaders within the home organizations. Fellows receive feedback in small groups, within their program cohort of 30 and from members of the larger alumni network of previously graduated fellows. The figure below provides an overview of the CHIP process. Figure 2: Overview of the CHIP Process Identify health center & patient needs Select project Set goals & objectives Create & refine project plan Implement & refine project Measure & communicate results Keep chipping Impact of the CHIP In September 2010, we asked the 200 alumni for whom we had current contact information to complete an online survey about their CHIP projects and their experiences with the CHIP process. The response rate was 62% (n=124) with slightly higher participation among more recent cohorts. Table 2 summarizes select demographics of the respondents, which are representative of the demographics of program participants overall.

4 Table 2: Select Characteristics of Survey Respondents Characteristic Gender Female Male Race/Ethnicity African American Asian/Asian American Caucasian Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown Profession Dentistry Dietetics Medicine Nursing Pharmacy Physical Therapy Social Work Type of organization Academic Institution Community Clinic or Health Center Government Health Plan or Managed Care Organization Public Hospital or Health System Private Hospital or Health system Private Practice All Others* Percent of Respondents (N) 54.8% (68) 45.2% (56) 4.0% (5) 69.4% (86) 20.2% (25) 4.0% (5) 69.4% (86) 20.2% (25) 12.1% (15) 14.5% (18) 10.5% (13) 9.7% (12) 16.9% (21) 11.3% (14) 11.3% (14) 13.7% (17) *Includes community organizations, consulting groups and others. The geographic distribution of survey respondents is also aligned with that of program participants overall. Roughly 40% (n=49) and 32% (n=40) of respondents reside in the Bay Area and the Greater Los Angeles/San Diego Area, respectively, with the remaining respondents living across the Central Valley, Central Coast, and Far North. To better understand the impact of the CHIP, respondents were asked to categorize the focus of their CHIP into four possible areas of impact. The four areas of impact available were financial, people, service, and quality. 1 Quality was the most frequently (31%, n=42) selected area, followed by service (28%, n=38), people (23%, n=32), and financial (18%, n=24). Alumni could choose more than one area, thus the total responses exceed the number of respondents. We also assessed the CHIP impact of by asking alumni about dissemination of their project results. Respondents were asked to indicate if they engaged in one or more of the following activities:

5 1) presentations at meetings or conferences, 2) giving testimony at local, state, or federal government hearings, 3) holding press conferences or giving radio interviews, 4) being cited in a newspaper or on a website, and 5) being published in a peer-reviewed publication. They were also able to choose other and include written comments about their dissemination activities. As seen in Figure 3 below, the most frequently reported activity was presentation at meetings or conferences. This was followed closely by other, which included reporting results within the organization and to funders and developing written manuals, guidelines, or procedures for internal use. Fellows infrequently reported using the other dissemination activities. In each cohort year, a large majority of participants were successful in disseminating their project work through some selection of these channels. Figure 3: Dissemination Activities for Projects for Cohorts 1-7 Because the CHIPs are developed in cooperation with the fellows' home organizations, the CHCF Health Leadership program was also interested in determining the degree to which the program played a role in implementation of the CHIP. Survey respondents were asked to indicate how likely they were to have undertaken their CHIP without the CHCF Leadership program. Responses were split almost evenly, with 51% (n=58) indicating that they were unlikely or very unlikely to have undertaken the project without the impetus of the program. Many respondents noted in qualitative responses that while they may have undertaken their project, the project implementation was smoother or easier with the help of the program. For example, one respondent stated, Although I would have likely taken on the project, it would not have been as successful without the process of the CHIP. CHIP Process The survey asked respondents to identify one or more factors that contributed to the successful implementation of their project (See Table 3). A majority of respondents most frequently indicated that engaged organizational 2013 Center for the Health Professions, UCSF http://futurehealth.ucsf.edu

6 stakeholders and support from executive leadership contributed to their ability to successfully implement their CHIP. Table 4: Factors contributing to successful implementation Factors Percent of respondents (N) Engaged key stakeholders 66% (82) Executive leadership support 53% (66) Institutional support 37% (46) Program peers 37% (46) Staff support 30% (37) Coaching/mentoring 29% (36) Technology 20% (25) Respondents could select more than one factor, therefore total exceeds 124. In qualitative responses, respondents also referenced the strength of the CHCF network and the alignment of CHIP goals with changes coinciding in the broader political environment as important factors that contributed to their success. In addition, being provided with a structured process for implementing change was also viewed as integral to the CHIP s effectiveness. Across all cohorts, 60% (n=75) of respondents reported completing their CHIP prior to graduation from the program. An additional 15% (n=18) of fellows completed their CHIP after graduation, bringing the overall completion rate to 75%. Fifteen (12%) respondents did not complete their CHIP. Although 16 (13%) did not respond to the question of whether the CHIP was completed after graduation, all 15 of the respondents who did not complete their CHIP after program completion and all 16 respondents who did not answer the question indicated that they had continued to work on their CHIP after the program ended. Program staff are aware that CHIP completion can be impacted by participant job changes, changes in the funding environment, and other external factors such as policy changes at the state or national levels. Significantly, 80% (n=100) of respondents indicated that some aspect of their CHIP had been sustained or expanded within their own original home organization or outside at another organization after completion of the fellowship, signifying the value and relevance of the projects. Conclusion The CHCF Health Care Leadership Program has an ambitious goal of improving the health care system for all Californians by developing individual leaders and creating a statewide leadership network. This robust network, currently consisting of nearly 300 alumni representing a variety of clinical backgrounds and health care delivery organizations, has facilitated successful collaborations among health care leaders across the state. The knowledge and skills taught under the Center's Leadership Model in the two-year CHCF Health Care Leadership Program are reinforced and strengthened through a variety of learning activities. One of the most integral learning activities is the California Healthcare Improvement Project (CHIP). The CHIP serves not only as

7 an exercise in project management and organizational improvement, but as a vehicle allowing each fellow to apply specific leadership skills and lessons learned within a supportive and collegial framework while implementing real changes that improve health care delivery. Since the time of this survey effort, the program has identified ways to strengthen the CHIP component of the fellows leadership development. In recent cohorts, fellows have been encouraged to select and implement a project that is aligned with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) triple aim: Improving the patient experience of care; improving the health of populations; and reducing the per capita cost of health care. 2 Increased emphasis has also been placed on measuring and reporting additional robust outcomes, including financial data. Going forward, these rigorous project metrics will further demonstrate the impact of the CHIPs both within individual projects and across cohorts. During the first seven cohorts of the program, the CHIPs resulted in organizational and system-wide changes. The outcomes and lessons learned from the CHIPs were widely disseminated within the fellow's home organizations and throughout CHCF Health Care Leadership Program network. With ongoing refinements to the program, the CHIPs will continue to spur important change, making lasting impacts on fellows organizations and on the broader health care system. Acknowledgements This report was made possible by a grant from The California HealthCare Foundation. References 1. Studer, Q. (2004). Hardwiring Excellence: Purpose Worthwhile Work Making a Difference. Gulf Breeze, FL: Fire Starter Publishing. 2. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Available from: http://www.ihi.org/offerings/initiatives/tripleaim/ Pages/default.aspx. 2013 Center for the Health Professions, UCSF http://futurehealth.ucsf.edu