Strengths of the priority setting process |
Enough VOICES “voices” - great (Not just one group) |
Collaboration process valuable to help us come to consensus |
Great to have the mixture of attendees. Really appreciate the focus of the event; good to have an “outside” facilitator |
The pre-meeting with VOICES was a great primer for the session. |
The facilitator did an excellent job a explaining the priority setting process. The small groups were excellent and I feel like everyone was able to share valid and important information |
Good timing, led to sharing of many thoughts, ideas |
Very well facilitated and organized. Appreciated the varied perspectives and feedback in determining the priorities |
Great sharing of thoughts and different perspectives |
It was tough to rank 34 items, it might have been clearer with fewer items |
The inclusive nature of the session was very valuable |
Great work in getting to a final product. Outside facilitation was especially good since she focused on the task and no vested interest |
It was very informative to have the various viewpoints represented at the table |
Suggestions for improving the priority setting process |
Would have liked to see more direct care people (care managers/admin/RNs) attending the priority setting exercise |
When providing a ranking sheet again provide a bit more explanation. Process familiar perhaps to creator, not so much so for rater |
I found 2nd grouping instructions lacked clarity … felt longer harder. We felt success with Group 1 then undone for Group 2. Hard to let go. |
Please incorporate this methodology more often in TREC, as applicable in determining priorities or where decisions need to be made |
Too many options /wording similarities |
Sharing of data between TREC and provincial/health authority team |
Have 2 days where 1 day rank half then have time that night to think about what to say for top 10 |
Include some staff is possible (HCAs, LPNs, RNs) as their input would present perspectives that are very valuable |