The March 13 Forum held in Edmonton was an opportunity for more than 70 people to learn details on changes being implemented related to core PCN activities in business planning and reporting, evaluating outcomes, and per capita funding methodology.
The morning was dedicated to a presentation by Barb Grehan, Consultant. She highlighted the outcomes of the business plan and operational reporting streamlining project that was initiated over 18 months ago. Forum participants were guided through the newly released PCI Guide and Reference Manual that is now available to assist project planners and PCN staff and administrators. Any PCN members involved with these processes who were unable to attend the Forum, but need to understand and/or apply the new requirements and templates should use our Contact form to schedule into an upcoming education session.
The afternoon sessions included presentations from Sherry Fielding and Doug Craig from Edmonton Southside PCN and Nelly Oelke, from Calgary Health Region sharing information regarding their current practices in measuring and reporting evaluation outcomes. Information was also provided regarding the PCIC plan to establish an Advisory Evaluation Subcommittee to provide recommendations in the coming months on evaluation of the initiative and determination of key performance indicators that should be implemented.
The per capita funding methodology presentation by Rita Wright, Associate Director of the Primary Care Initiative, explained reasons for the change, selection criteria, and policy decisions made to date that affects the funding PCNs may be eligible to receive. The day concluded with brief presentations on the status of the Health Management Kit for patients in PCNs and the redevelopment of the PCI website scheduled to start up in May.
Feedback from those attending the Forum indicated that the majority of attendees found the information and presentations valuable and useful. A few participants indicated that there was a higher level of detail provided in some presentations compared to what they felt they required while other participants indicated that the comprehensive approach was what they valued.