As discussions continue on #nz-forum:nz-ciln-governance about the most effective way forward to operationalise the purpose of @ nz-ciln as outlined in our Position Statement, please comment on what matrix of characteristics you think are optimal for CiLN governance? [thank you @alex for sharing great example of matrix characteristics ]
Lived Experience Characteristics [NB- Governance will be done by individuals in a group, rather than as representatives of an organisation or entity. Therefore, lived experience characteristics are self-identified by a person considering a governance role, and does not indicate representation for all those who share a particular characteristic.]
Under 30 years of age
Gender
Ethnicity
Geographic location
Personality type (e.g., introverted, extroverted)
Other self-identified identities
0voters
Skills & Professional Experience Characteristics [NB - These could be supported through demonstration of past activities.]
I don’t see clinical experience here. Personally I think we must have HCWs who are living the experience on the floor ie actively practicing clinicians. You may want to have >50 years as well given the age of our workforce.
Agreed. Unfortunately, if I modify the poll, current results are lost . . . though, only 3 of us have voted. I had been thinking ‘health provider’ was where clinical experience sat, but maybe that’s two different things?
I think years of clinical experience is separate to current patient contact.
Ongoing clinical work at senior level is more common in medicine than it is in nursing, midwifery and allied health- once we transition into leadership positions, the direct patient contact usually ceases.
Also suggest we consider health practitioners in the matrix- our non-registered allied health colleagues
Also like the idea of age >50, given the aging workforce and being representative of that
I agree . . . what do you think is best approach? Do we stipulate a minimum FTE clinical case-load to claim you are contributing ‘patient contact’ expertise/experience? 0.3FTE?? (I’ve been a wee bit skeptical about those only doing 0.1FTE or even 0.2 FTE patient contact, as you just don’t get the challenges of follow-up care, which is where alot of burn-out/burden of work lies . . . and, where I think HIT, impacts positively or negatively).
For those of you in shift-work scenarios, do you think there is a difference between 0.1 FTE vs 0.2FTE vs 0.3 shift work, in regards to understanding the coal-face of patient care?
Good start with a matrix. Would be interesting to see how this matrix maps to the Position Statement.
Age - mmm, it’s more about what age patterns we don’t want than attempting to capture a ‘good’ age profile. I would argue that age is secondary to the value that a candidate brings to CiLN.
‘Health provider’ - agree with others who would like to see this on a more granular level, but if we’re prescriptive about active clinical practice we might end up with a skew away from a lot of people with senior experience and a lot of value to add to the group. How about we say that we want some members to represent active clinical workload and insert a safety valve that doesn’t favour medics, e.g. one medic and one other type of clinician? ‘Health provider’ is a deliberately ambiguous term to include individuals and organisations in policy, research and marketing documents. Let’s avoid it.
Does one have to be or have been a clinician (of any kind) to be on this group? I ask because of inclusion of business and computer science in the list. Would someone with only computer/business background be a guest/appointed member?
]