Appendix I
Facilitating the Summit Working Groups

Committee members provided guidance to the condition-specific working groups in using a number of facilitation tools to generate their action plans. Within each of these five condition-specific groups, the participants worked in subgroups of six to eight individuals. Each of these subgroups focused on generating and prioritizing strategies for use of a key cross-cutting intervention (e.g., financing, information and communications technology) to improve care for a particular condition. “Brainwriting,” a technique employed in silence, was used to generate ideas at each table, which were then categorized and prioritized using affinity diagrams (Brassard and Ritter, 1994). On day two, each of the condition-specific working groups developed an affinity diagram for the entire group, which identified the top two or three key leverage points. The condition-specific groups then developed action plans focused on these leverage points, which included strategies at the national and local levels, implementation timelines, and measures for evaluating progress.

REFERENCES

Brassard M, Ritter D. 1994. The Memory Jogger II. Salem, NH: Goal QPC.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 155
The Ist Annual Crossing the Quality Chasm Summit: A Focus on Communities Appendix I Facilitating the Summit Working Groups Committee members provided guidance to the condition-specific working groups in using a number of facilitation tools to generate their action plans. Within each of these five condition-specific groups, the participants worked in subgroups of six to eight individuals. Each of these subgroups focused on generating and prioritizing strategies for use of a key cross-cutting intervention (e.g., financing, information and communications technology) to improve care for a particular condition. “Brainwriting,” a technique employed in silence, was used to generate ideas at each table, which were then categorized and prioritized using affinity diagrams (Brassard and Ritter, 1994). On day two, each of the condition-specific working groups developed an affinity diagram for the entire group, which identified the top two or three key leverage points. The condition-specific groups then developed action plans focused on these leverage points, which included strategies at the national and local levels, implementation timelines, and measures for evaluating progress. REFERENCES Brassard M, Ritter D. 1994. The Memory Jogger II. Salem, NH: Goal QPC.

OCR for page 155
The Ist Annual Crossing the Quality Chasm Summit: A Focus on Communities This page intentionally left blank.