scholarly journals 2360 Engaging, capturing, and integrating the voice of the customer and collaborator in a clinical and translational science program

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Boris Volkov ◽  
Jennifer Cieslak ◽  
Brook Matthiesen
Keyword(s):  
Nonprofit Organizations ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
Science Program ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Community Members ◽  
The University ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Voice Of The Customer

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This presentation will highlight the framework, domains, and approaches of the “Engaging the Voice of the CTS Customer and Collaborator System” created at the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) in response to the need to improve the stakeholder engagement, quality, efficiency, consistency, and transparency of the clinical and translational work. This system addresses 3 important results-based accountability measures/questions: “What should we do?”, “How well did we do it?”, and “Is anyone better off?”. According to Woolf (2008), “translational research means different things to different people.” Social networks and systems that support translational processes and outcomes are complex, nonlinear, and multidisciplinary (Smith et al., 2017). In this highly uncertain and fluid context, the input of program stakeholders is paramount to move translation forward. NCATS Strategic Plan (2016) directs the grantees to engage patients, community members and nonprofit organizations meaningfully in translational science and all aspects of translational research. Engagement of stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of a translational research project ensures the project processes and outcomes are relevant to and directly address their needs and will be more readily adopted by the community. “Customer” (among other terms are Beneficiary, Collaborator, Client, Community, Consumer, Service User, etc.) is a person, organization, or entity who directly benefits from service delivery or program (Friedman, 2005). Customers can be: direct and indirect, primary and secondary, internal and external. Our analysis of CTS stakeholders (“Who are our customers/collaborators?”) produced the following list of customers and collaborators: researchers, University departments, translational science workforce, patients, community members and entities, nonprofit organizations, industry collaborators, NCATS/NIH, CTSA hub partners, and CTSI staff. The “Voice of the Customer” (VOC) is the term used to describe the stated and unstated needs or requirements of the program’s customer. The “voice of the customer” is a process used to capture the feedback from the customer (internal or external) to provide the customers with the best quality of service, support, and/or product. This process is about being proactive and constantly innovative to capture the changing needs of the customers with time. Related to the VOC is the concept of user innovation that refers to innovations developed by consumers and end users. Experience shows that sometimes the best product or a process concept idea comes from a customer (Yang, 2007: p. 20). Capturing and utilizing such ideas are also relevant to VOC and can be operationalized and implemented as a valuable strategy. The University of Minnesota CTSI’s key objectives, goals, and uses of engaging the VOC and collaborator are as follows: (1) Engage CTSA customers (“relevant stakeholders”) in multiple aspects of translational science and look for opportunities to include their perspective (per NCATS strategic principles). (2) Inform continuous improvement, strategic management, and M&E efforts, the identification of customer needs and wants, comprehensive problem definition and ideation, new concept development and optimization. (3) Synergize NCATS and partner expectations and campus/hub needs. (4) Translate VOC into functional and measurable service requirements. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A case study of the programmatic and methodological approach/technique development. The VOC at the UMN CTSI has been captured in a variety of ways: regular and ad hoc surveys, interviews, focus groups, Engagement Studios, formal call for patient/community ideas and proposals, informal conversations, customer/community membership and participation in the Advisory Boards and Executive Leadership Team meetings, and observations. Our VOC variables and metrics assess customer needs, wants, knowledge, and skills; customer satisfaction with processes and outcomes; and customer ideas for improvement and innovation. The ensuing customer feedback and other data have been used to identify and incorporate the important attributes needed in the CTSI processes, products, and dissemination. UMN CTSI partners in engaging and capturing the VOC include our past, current, and potential customers and collaborators, communities, program staff and service providers, program administration, communication staff, M&E team, internal and external data collectors. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The proposed comprehensive approach shows sound promise to enhance customer and collaborator engagement, critical thinking, learning, strategic management, evaluation capacity and improvement within clinical and translational science organizations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This structured approach’s impact is significant in that it fills the current gap in the practice, literature, and methodology and offers a practical example of a “practice that works” for CTR (and other) organizations and programs striving to improve their stakeholder engagement and program impact. Leveraging and synergizing the VOC and community engagement approaches can help CTS organizations advance beyond capturing individual project/service experiences to drawing a holistic portrait of an institution-level (and, potentially, a nation-level) translational science program.ReferencesFriedman M. Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough: How to Produce Measurable Improvements for Customers and Communities. Trafford, 2005.National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. NCATS Strategic Plan [Internet], 2016. NIH (https://ncats.nih.gov/strategicplan)Smith C,et al. Toward a science of translational science. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2017; 1: 253–255.Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 2008; 29: 211–213.Yang, K. Voice of the Customer Capture and Analysis. US: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2007.

scholarly journals 3402 A High-Impact, Structured, Collaborative Approach to Implementing and Utilizing the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) for a Clinical and Translational Science Award

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
Boris Volkov ◽  
Jennifer Cieslak ◽  
Rachel Matthes ◽  
Christopher Pulley
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Learning ◽  
Continuous Improvement ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Science Program ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Collaborative Approach ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Program Staff ◽  
The University ◽  
Staff Engagement

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This presentation will highlight a structured, collaborative approach to implementing and utilizing the RPPR process created at the University of Minnesota CTSI in response to the need to enhance the quality, efficiency, consistency, and utilization of annual program reporting. The approach is in line with the NCATS’s strategic objective that encourages all CTS organizations to “disseminate research results and best practices broadly, and promote a culture of openness, sharing and transparency” (NCATS, 2016, p. 19). Program activities that support translational processes and contribute to clinical outcomes are complex, nonlinear, and multidisciplinary (Smith etal., 2017). In this complex context, the meaningful engagement and reflection of program staff and collaborators is essential for all aspects of program planning, implementation, reporting, and dissemination. The University of Minnesota CTSI’s key objectives, goals, and uses of RPPR are as follows: - Develop, align, and leverage the RPPR to fulfill the accountability requirements, needs, and expectations of multiple stakeholders: NIH/NCATS, Internal Advisory Board and External Advisory Board, campus/hub, program staff and collaborators. - Engage the CTSA staff and collaborators as a team in multiple aspects of program reporting. - Inform strategic management, continuous improvement, monitoring and evaluation, organizational learning and dissemination to program stakeholders. - Translate the reported information into practical, evidence-based issues and strategic questions for the leadership discussions and advisory board consultations, actionable work plans, communication to stakeholders, organizational learning, and translational science knowledge base. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A case study of the programmatic/evaluative and methodological approach/technique development that resulted in a formal, structured, collaborative, transparent process with detailed guidelines, templates, and timelines. The process and content for reporting has been developed via a variety of methods and sources: specific funder (NIH) requirements, Huddle meetings, document/content/database analysis, reflection meetings with component staff, informal conversations, and observations. Preparation for the report began almost one year in advance, including careful analysis of the report requirements, developing user-friendly, detailed guidelines, templates, and examples. The guide templates and worksheets were created as a result of time spent navigating current instructions provided by NIH and NCATS. Timeline/project plan was developed with start and end dates for all of the moving parts along with identified responsible personnel for each of the tasks. A grid of the grant components and responsible personnel was designed to highlight the matrixed organization of the grant and the need to work across components to create single reports. The RPPR key categories have also been considered for incorporating and tracking in a program activity/customer tracking system for ongoing data management and use. As a complex translational science program, UMN CTSI has multiple initiatives, variables, and metrics to report. The program staff has been deeply engaged in the evaluative reflection to identify, prioritize, and incorporate into the RPPR the metrics that most useful to manage and describe CTSI processes, participation, products, and outcomes. Program components responded differently to the collaborative approach implemented. The M&E technical assistance was implemented in 3 different ways: components either did the M&E RPPR template themselves, with minimal M&E team assistance; responded to comments and information provided by the M&E team as a first step; or requested a significant level of assistance from M&E. Participants/partners in developing and using RPPR include CTSI program leadership and staff, administration, communication staff, M&E team, and our collaborators. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The proposed comprehensive approach to the annual program performance reporting shows sound promise to enhance program staff engagement, report utilization, learning, strategic management, self-evaluation capacity, and continuous improvement within a clinical and translational science organization. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This structured approach’s impact is significant in that it fills the current gap in the practice, literature, and methodology and offers a practical example of a “practice that works” for CTR (and other) organizations and programs striving to improve their reporting practices, staff engagement, learning, and program impact. Leveraging and synergizing the RPPR requirements and other complex, data-demanding obligations and needs can help the CTS programs move beyond the once-a-year compilation of project accomplishments and challenges to developing and sharing a thoughtful translational science program success story. References: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. (2016). NCATS Strategic Plan. NIH. Available at: https://ncats.nih.gov/strategicplan Smith, C., Baveja, R., Grieb, T., & Mashour, G. (2017). Toward a science of translational science. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(4), 253-255. doi: 10.1017/cts.2017.14

scholarly journals Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey W. Treem ◽  
Margaret Schneider ◽  
Robynn L. Zender ◽  
Dara H. Sorkin
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Stage Process ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
The University

IntroductionThis study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants.MethodsThe University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. In total, 4 studies were discussed by both study sections.ResultsComparisons of reviews revealed little difference between ratings of community reviewers and those of scientific reviewers, and that community reviewers largely refrained from critiquing scientific or technical aspects of proposals.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that involving community reviewers early in the grant cycle, and exposing them to the entirety of the review process, can bolster community engagement without compromising the rigor of grant evaluations.

scholarly journals Building capacity for dissemination and implementation to maximize research impact in a CTSA: The University of Wisconsin story

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Quanbeck ◽  
Jane Mahoney ◽  
Kim Kies ◽  
Kate Judge ◽  
Maureen Smith
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Relationship Building ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Building Capacity ◽  
University Of Wisconsin ◽  
The University ◽  
The Impact

AbstractWe report results of an 8-year process of stakeholder engagement aimed at building capacity in Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) research at the University of Wisconsin as part of the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Starting in 2008, annual individual interviews were held with leaders of the Wisconsin CTSA’s community engagement core for strategic planning purposes. Interviews were followed by annual planning meetings that employed a facilitated group decision-making process aimed at identifying and prioritizing gaps in the translational research spectrum. In 2011, the stakeholder engagement process identified D&I as a primary gap limiting overall impact of the institution’s research across the translational spectrum. Since that time, our CTSA has created an array of D&I resources falling into four broad categories: (1) relationship building with D&I partners, (2) D&I skill building, (3) translational research resources, and (4) resources to support D&I activities. Our systematic process of stakeholder engagement has increased the impact of research by providing D&I resources to meet investigator and community needs. CTSAs could engage with leaders of their community engagement cores, which are common to all CTSAs, to adapt or adopt these resources to build D&I capacity.

scholarly journals Developing sustainable research careers for KL2 scholars: The importance of an inclusive environment and mentorship

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 226-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie L. Byington ◽  
Erin Rothwell ◽  
Trent Matheson ◽  
Rebecca Childs ◽  
Erin Wachs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Workforce Development ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Collaborative Project ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
The University

IntroductionThe National Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium 2.0 has developed common metrics as a collaborative project for all participating sites. Metrics address several important aspects and functions of the consortium, including workforce development. The first workforce development metrics to be proposed for all CTSA hubs include the proportion of CTSA-supported trainees and scholars with sustainable careers in translational research and the diversity and inclusiveness of programs.Methods and resultsThe University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), a CTSA hub, has been actively engaged in mentoring translational scientists for the last decade. We have developed programs, processes, and institutional policies that support translational scientists, which have resulted in 100% of our KL2 scholars remaining engaged in translational science and in increasing the inclusion of individuals under-represented in medicine in our research enterprise. In this paper, we share details of our program and what we believe are evidence-based best practices for developing sustainable translational research careers for all aspiring junior faculty members.ConclusionsThe University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science has been integral in catalyzing interactions across the campus to reverse the negative trends seen nationally in sustaining clinician scientists. Our programs and processes can serve as a model for other institutions seeking to develop translational scientists.

scholarly journals Why Washington, DC, Is “One of the Best Places to Live in the World”: An Interview with Tommy Wells, Director of the District Department of the Environment

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 124
Author(s):  
Christine Mellen
Keyword(s):  
Child Welfare ◽  
Nonprofit Organizations ◽  
Bachelor's Degree ◽  
City Council ◽  
Law School ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Protective Services ◽  
Catholic University ◽  
The University

Tommy Wells is the director of the District Department of the Environment (DDOE). He first came to the District in 1983 after receiving his bachelor’s degree from the University of Alabama and a master’s degree in social work from the University of Minnesota. Wells focused on child welfare issues for over two decades, first at the city’s child protective services agency and then as director of the Consortium for Child Welfare, a coalition of nonprofit organizations advocating for children, youth, and families in the District. During that time he attended law school at night, receiving his degree from the Catholic University of America in 1991.Wells first held elected office in 1995, as a member of the Advisory Neighborhood Commission in Ward 6. Following a stint on the DC State Board of Education, he ran for city council, where he represented Ward 6 for eight years. During his time on the council, Wells sat on the committees responsible for legislation affecting the environment, health, human services, and transportation. In 2014, he ran in the Democratic primary for mayor, finishing third to current mayor Muriel Bowser and then-mayor Vincent Gray.On March 18, Wells spoke with Christine Mellen of Policy Perspectives at his office. Their conversation touched on topics such as the District’s disposable bag fee, energy and the environment, and the District’s streetcar system.

scholarly journals A Partnership with Nature

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Jean Marie Larson
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Opportunities To Learn ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
Health Studies ◽  
The University ◽  
Structured Program ◽  
Intentional Activities

Nature-Based Therapy seeks to improve essential components of human health and wellbeing by facilitating valuable opportunities to learn and engage with living, green, non-built nature. There is growing scientific evidence to support the multiple benefits of time spent in nature, urging a call for increased clinical and public health studies to better understand these relationships. Literature suggests that engaging people with nature in lasting and meaningful ways requires intentional activities that relate to everyday life, that bring family, friends and community members together. This paper will examine the foundations of building and implementing one such sustained, structured program at the University of Minnesota, called 30x30 Nature Heals.

scholarly journals 4255 Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI) – CTSA-wide podcast opportunity

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 87-87
Author(s):  
Christine Drury ◽  
Aaron E. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Workforce Development ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
New York Times ◽  
List Type ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Audience Engagement ◽  
Study Population ◽  
The University

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The podcasts highlight work from our partners: Indiana University, Purdue University and the University of Notre Dame.Our goal is to expand our podcast reach to include work from at least three additional CTSAs, as well as highlighting the benefits of translational research to the public.METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Aaron E. Carroll, is the director of Education and Workforce Development for the Indiana CTSI and a popular writer covering health, research, and policy for The New York Times. He is host of the Indiana CTSI-sponsored Healthcare Triage podcasts as well as the Healthcare Triage YouTube show, with 340,000 subscribers. We will leverage his audience and research expertise to grow the Indiana CTSI podcast participation and increase audience engagement.We will eventually allow the nation-wide network of CTSAs to pitch guests and shows covering Translational Research, and invite local CTSA leadership or faculty to participate in the podcast.RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Utilizing quantitative analytics, we expect to see a significant increase in podcast downloads and listeners as we expand our offering to other CTSAs, beyond IndianaWe expect that the CTSA-wide podcast will increase the nationwide level of knowledge and understanding of NCATS, translational research, and its benefits to society and healthcare.We anticipate, through this expanded podcast offering, a growing number of community members who are informed and engaged on the topics of translational research, clinical and translational sciences and beyond.DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Podcasts are a convenient, portable, and efficient form of science communication.Podcasts also make information personal and offer us an excellent and innovative communications vehicle to spread the word about translational research, as well as the excellent work happening at each of our CTSAs.

The Effects of Presentation on Noise and Dental Appliances on Speech

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-151
Author(s):  
Lillian Glass ◽  
Sharon R. Garber ◽  
T. Michael Speidel ◽  
Gerald M. Siegel ◽  
Edward Miller
Keyword(s):  
Southern California ◽  
University Of Southern California ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
Southern California School ◽  
School Of Dentistry ◽  
The University

An omission in the Table of Contents, December JSHR, has occurred. Lillian Glass, Ph.D., at the University of Southern California School of Medicine and School of Dentistry, was a co-author of the article "The Effects of Presentation on Noise and Dental Appliances on Speech" along with Sharon R. Garber, T. Michael Speidel, Gerald M. Siegel, and Edward Miller of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document