ACT Teaching Nursing Home Bid/Writing with external participants - 12 August 2011
12 August 2011
Please RSVP to Laurie.email@example.com
This second writing meeting is for those people who attended the March Open Forum and have expressed an interest in writing. An UC team has developed three working documents for consideration, discussion and development at this meeting
Rosemary Oates, Jane Kellett, David Jeffery, Jenny Symons, Russell McGowan, Carmel McQuellin, Rachel Bacon, Jo Gibson, Gabrielle Cooper, Laurie Grealish (chair)
Apologies: Margaret Thornton, Luke Oborne, Darlene Cox, Greg Kyle, Irene Stein, Kasia Bail
In this second meeting, volunteers from the March Open Forum, considered three papers that had been prepared by the UC team. This is a summary of the discussion.
Laurie provided a brief overview of the work done to date including:
- 24 March Open Forum
- 19 May First meeting of writing team, sub-committee of Open Forum
- June meetings of UC team, with administrative support through an internal grant
- Today’s second meeting of the writing team
- 22 September – report to an Invited Forum (people at last meeting and those who have made contact with UC since)
The governance paper outlined principles. These principles were agreed with the following additions:
- Add ‘formal agreements’ to the first bullet to read: relationships are clearly articulated through formal agreements
- Add a bullet such as ‘responding to a changing policy environment’ to the first section
- Add value statements consistent with the Productivity Commission Report such as: person-centredness, evaluation/continuing improvement, focus on health and well-being and others
Russell advised that Darlene Cox has a program that may help identify buzz words from the Productivity Commission Report that may be useful for the tender bid.
For revision: Action UC team Collection of ‘buzz words’: Russell and Darlene
The communication paper provided the group with a framework for discussion about operational structure. It was agreed that:
- Four operational areas were required to reflect the strategic goals of the TNH – research, service innovation, community engagement/ external relationships and workforce development or professionalizing the workforce;
- Each of the four areas would have an advisory group providing advice on strategy to the board as well as sponsoring specific projects;
- The board of the TNH would be representative of the diverse stakeholder groups with a vested interest in the TNH (vested interest implies some type of financial or in-kind support); The TNH should be broader than health and include other areas that inform health
and well-being; Someone from government should sit on the board (federal or state dependent upon the tender requirements); The ACPHRI model and the Medicare local models of governance may be instructive in managing a broad stakeholder group (loose network); An audit, risk, finance sub-committee of the board is required;
For revision: Action UC team
This discussion focused on identifying the possible types of projects that could be undertaken by each of the four advisory groups – the nature of the projects will be dependent upon the tender.
For noting in revised papers.
It was agreed that the UC team would revise the papers for presentation to an Invited Forum on 22 September. Papers would be by 10 September for circulation with the agenda on 15 September.
Laurie thanked members of the group for their support.