Goal Map for a Primary Care Research Network
Amongst my work friends, we like to “fail fast” – that is to put up something for feedback quickly so that it can rapidly evolve with group input rather than polishing something on your own until you think it is “done” only to find out your second step led you in a direction you didn’t need to go.
So here is an early version of a goal map for a PCRN – this is based on the i* notation and does take a few sentences to describe. First, there are actors, represented by circles. These actors have goals, the pill shaped icons. Actors in a network are typically dependent on others to achieve certain goals. The arrows represent the dependencies. You can read it like this:
“ACTOR X wants to achieve GOAL A and is dependent on ACTOR B to achieve GOAL A”
or less abstractly:
“A PATIENT wants to have GOOD QUALITY CARE and is dependent on a FAMILY DOCTOR to receive GOOD QUALITY CARE.”
Hopefully that helps understand the image below (click for a larger version) and do provide comments – I would like to use this post to solicit public feedback and revise the map to help support our local design thinking.
(click for larger version)
In general, I like it. Areas where I stumble a bit:
“Not being harmed” might be replaced with something positive like “receive safe care”. One could avoid being harmed by avoiding the network entirely. It might be folded in with quality patient care, but then the role of network leadership isn’t clear. They would facilitate safe/quality care, and their role in the network seems like a central one with respect to patient safety.
On “Provide quality care efficiently”, the way the arrows are currently arranged, clinicians would depend on both network leadership and patients to provide care. This might be all right, but I might avoid saying that a physician needs to be in a network to provide efficient care. I might say instead that the network facilitates more efficient care?
Having a legend like this:
http://db.tt/Zbvtt1B
might help people more quickly grasp the connections.
Hope this is helpful!
Mark
Mark Ballermann
10 Mar 11 at 9:18 am
Mark,
Thanks for the comment — very helpful.
I agree on both the rewording of not being harmed and on the legend.
What I was trying to get at with the efficient care component, which should be reworded, is that more the reverse. The provider, if they are participating in the network, depends on the network design NOT to slow them down too much. As a provider, I am happy to participate for the greater good if it does not impact flow of patients too much.
Does that make sense?
– Mrogan
priceless
10 Mar 11 at 10:05 am
With the explanation, it makes sense.
It’s an issue of communicating what the network does not do, ie present additional work to the clinicians.
Who are the intended audiences for this diagram? It might help with making it more clear.
Mark Ballermann
10 Mar 11 at 5:26 pm