Table 1.
Does the Two-Phase Process help AHC’s identify and map current CE efforts? (URMC Framework)
| Subcategories | Project Leader’s Comments |
|---|---|
| Mapping CE Efforts |
• Helped us see all of our CE activities and it creates a baseline for planning activities moving forward, and for tracking our successes • Helpful in assisting us to identify gaps • A mechanism to catalog CE work • Extremely helpful in mapping and understanding the CE efforts that were happening across the academic health center |
| Adaptability of the URMC Framework; Implemented |
• Separated out activities and evaluation criteria by department/office/center, and added a locations column • Added columns for school, lead contact and audience served • Used 3 original goals, but modified and added some • The URMC model was very useful in helping us begin this conversation. However, we had to revamp the model to guide our conversation in a way that worked for us • We had a lot of discussion about what the column headings would be and what information would fit for each one |
| Challenges in using the URMC Framework and Suggested Changes |
• Would have been helpful to the institution to include source/PI to know/remember where to get the data • Assessment of quantity vs. quality of programs could be helpful • Perhaps adding some step by step on how to walk through the process. A series of questions to ask the team to elicit the information. Once we got started the process seemed to flow. Getting started was the tough part. Maybe even a facilitator to work through that can objectively place items in the right areas or push the group to consider other aspects of CE • Difficult to differentiate between structure, process, outcomes • Had trouble determining who to bring to the table • Somewhat difficult to assure that they had accurate data on all existing programs and research projects related to CE • The framework was a little confusing. Once we walked through it a bit it became much easier! |