Data

General Issues
Health
Specific Topics
Quality of Health Care
Health Care Reform
Location
30 Bond Street
Toronto
Ontario
M5B 1W8
Canada
Scope of Influence
Organization
Links
Citizen Reference Panels
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of private organizations
Research
Approach
Consultation
Research
Spectrum of Public Participation
Consult
Total Number of Participants
36
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Recruit or select participants
Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations
Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Citizens' Reference Panel
Civic Lottery
Deliberation
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Facilitator Training
Professional Facilitators
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Ask & Answer Questions
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
Idea Generation
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Type of Organizer/Manager
Non-Governmental Organization
Type of Funder
Non-Governmental Organization
Staff
Yes
Volunteers
No

CASE

St. Michael's Hospital Academic Family Health Team Patient Design Panel, Toronto

16. August 2019 Scott Fletcher Bowlsby
7. August 2019 Scott Fletcher Bowlsby
General Issues
Health
Specific Topics
Quality of Health Care
Health Care Reform
Location
30 Bond Street
Toronto
Ontario
M5B 1W8
Canada
Scope of Influence
Organization
Links
Citizen Reference Panels
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of private organizations
Research
Approach
Consultation
Research
Spectrum of Public Participation
Consult
Total Number of Participants
36
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Recruit or select participants
Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations
Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Citizens' Reference Panel
Civic Lottery
Deliberation
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Facilitator Training
Professional Facilitators
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Ask & Answer Questions
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
Idea Generation
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Type of Organizer/Manager
Non-Governmental Organization
Type of Funder
Non-Governmental Organization
Staff
Yes
Volunteers
No

A 1-day deliberative event attended by 36 randomly selected members of the public to provide input on improving the patient experience at St. Michael's Hospital.


Note: the following entry is incomplete. You can help Participedia by adding to it.


Problems and Purpose

The Academic Family Health Team Patient Design panel was convened by St. Michael's Hospital to help the team improve the process and experience of medical appointments.[1]

Background History and Context

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Participant Recruitment and Selection

St. Michael’s Hospital: Academic Family Health Team commissioned MASS to convene a randomly selected group of residents from their active patient roster to help them improve the process and experience of a medical appointment. This was the first time a Civic Lottery was conducted using email as the recruitment tool. MASS wrote and designed two rounds of recruitment emails that were sent to 10,000 patients that the Academic Family Health Team randomly selected from their roster. 350 of these patients volunteered, and 36 of these were randomly selected and convened for a one-day session. The panel matched the demographic profile of the Family Health Team’s catchment area and included proxy selection criteria for income level.[2]

Methods and Tools Used

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The panelists learned about the Family Health Team’s role within the health care system and about the patient appointment process from St. Michael’s staff members. The panel then developed a report detailing the problems and recommendations for each step of the appointment process. Two panelists then presented and explained the motivations behind the final recommendations to the larger Family Health Team organization several weeks after the panel was convened.[3]

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Analysis and Lessons Learned

See Also

Citizen Reference Panel

Civic Lottery

References

[1] Claudia Chwalisz, The People's Verdict: Adding Informed Citizen Voices to Public Decision-Making (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), 82. Available at https://www.sipotra.it/old/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/THE-PEOPLE’-S-VERDICT.pdf

[2] MASS LBP, 'Celebrate 25+ Reference Panels', https://www.masslbp.com/masspanels/#itemId=5734b5dc27d4bdd1393c501d

[3] MASS LBP, 'Celebrate 25+ Reference Panels', https://www.masslbp.com/masspanels/#itemId=5734b5dc27d4bdd1393c501d

External Links

Notes