As per our Blog Policy - the comments and opinions in this article are those of the author and do not represent the organization.
We’ve just finished a fall education term where we’ve coordinated four conferences in five weeks in Ottawa, and the first off-site conference for Brockville staff in two years. We feel like we’ve completed a 26K marathon.
I use the wedding metaphor to try and help people visualize the work and emotion involved in creating a successful conference. There are hundreds of details requiring attention. We’ve never attempted so many major events over such a short timeframe and my colleague Marie-Constance Morley deserves enormous credit for the success of these events.
o The 3rd Annual Community Day for Care and Treatment of Schizophrenia reached its 100 registrant ceiling again, as it has every year. The multi-systems panel was a huge success. And the event placed over $2,000 in the pockets of the Schizophrenia Program to reinvest in other education needs.
o The IMHR Free Public Lecture “Breaking the Barriers: Out of the Shadows Through Science” celebrating Mental Illness Awareness Week filled all 170 seats in the auditorium within a 18 day registration period.
o The 5th Annual Ivy Dunn Clinical Nursing Research Day “Keeping Our Clinical Space Safe” was another successful event and for the first time in the past two years, generated revenue for the Ivy Dunn Bursary.
o The Building Healthier Workplaces Conference “Inspiring Leadership”, a partnership initiative that included our lead Human Resource service partners Manulife, Shepell-fgi, and Mercer, raised $10,000 for the Royal Ottawa Foundation for Mental Health.
As we debrief these events there are areas for improvement. But these conferences were successful during a period where we are seeing a downturn in the conference industry, obviously connected to the economic fallout that is impacting all public and private sectors.
I also want to take pride in our first conference success in over two years in Brockville where we recently administered the “BMHC Self-Determination Workshop” which received outstanding feedback. We want to encourage and support more of these events in Brockville. Whitnee Denard-Paul, Debra Rice and Candace Whitley have set a terrific example for all BMHC programs.
We live in an age where education is being squeezed onto the web, channeled through the wires of videoconference equipment, and compromised in several other ways. A successful conference that provides great content and takes the learner away from the noise and conflict of their normal workday still has a profound impact on education; and we’ll continue to work diligently to support this traditional mode of learning.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
CBT - Walking the Survey Talk
As per our Blog Policy - the comments and opinions in this article are those of the author and do not represent the organization.
Staff who participated in the 2005 and 2006 ROHCG surveys identified Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) as the most desirable therapeutic learning need. I’m proud to say that much has been done to respond to this need. I also think it is important to say that in the case of CBT, staff asked for it, and they seem poised to act on it!
Let’s briefly turn the page back to May and June of 2006. Our CBT task group composed of Dr. Carlos Miura, Dr. John Telner, Dr. Nicola Wright, Virginia Lafond, Lisa Murata, and my L&D team developed and delivered what could be called CBT month – a series of CBT events that provided education for approximately 800 participants and generated thousands of dollars of revenue that was re-invested in further education and CBT resources. The highlight of the series was a two-day workshop featuring Dr. Douglas Turkington, one of the world’s most renowned experts in CBT and co-author of the book "Cognitive Therapy in Schizophrenia" with Dr. David Kingdon in 2005.
The only tint of grey to this acclaimed event was that registration for the two-day workshop was capped at 60 at the request of Dr. Turkington. This was done to allow a small-group intimacy for the event.
Fortunately, Dr. Turkington has no such apprehension as we prepare for an encore workshop this May. The registration limit has been set at 150 participants. That affords Learning & Development the opportunity to place those who identified CBT as a priority with the opportunity to participate in this great workshop.
We offered 40 sponsored registrations and I must confess that I expected between 20 to 30 applicants. By March 26 we received 46 applications. Of course we must now declare the submission process is over. But it’s exciting to witness the fact that the Needs Assessment results were clear, accurate, and that staff and students acted on the follow-up opportunity. Here comes my favorite saying:
“That’s how a Learning Organization is supposed to work”.
· We will process 46 sponsorships. That means up to 1/3rd of participants will represent the Royal
· That represents $8,500 of conference revenue.
· 13 participants from the ROHCG Social Work community of practice
· 15 participants from the ROHCG Nursing community of practice
· 13 participants from the ROHCG Psychology community of practice (staff and students)
· 5 other allied health participants
When we began this CBT Education journey in 2005 Dr. Carlos Miura explained his vision of the ROHCG inheriting a culture of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and his hope that the ROHCG will become a world leader in CBT. I’m hopeful this initiative will move us much closer to his vision.
Staff who participated in the 2005 and 2006 ROHCG surveys identified Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) as the most desirable therapeutic learning need. I’m proud to say that much has been done to respond to this need. I also think it is important to say that in the case of CBT, staff asked for it, and they seem poised to act on it!
Let’s briefly turn the page back to May and June of 2006. Our CBT task group composed of Dr. Carlos Miura, Dr. John Telner, Dr. Nicola Wright, Virginia Lafond, Lisa Murata, and my L&D team developed and delivered what could be called CBT month – a series of CBT events that provided education for approximately 800 participants and generated thousands of dollars of revenue that was re-invested in further education and CBT resources. The highlight of the series was a two-day workshop featuring Dr. Douglas Turkington, one of the world’s most renowned experts in CBT and co-author of the book "Cognitive Therapy in Schizophrenia" with Dr. David Kingdon in 2005.
The only tint of grey to this acclaimed event was that registration for the two-day workshop was capped at 60 at the request of Dr. Turkington. This was done to allow a small-group intimacy for the event.
Fortunately, Dr. Turkington has no such apprehension as we prepare for an encore workshop this May. The registration limit has been set at 150 participants. That affords Learning & Development the opportunity to place those who identified CBT as a priority with the opportunity to participate in this great workshop.
We offered 40 sponsored registrations and I must confess that I expected between 20 to 30 applicants. By March 26 we received 46 applications. Of course we must now declare the submission process is over. But it’s exciting to witness the fact that the Needs Assessment results were clear, accurate, and that staff and students acted on the follow-up opportunity. Here comes my favorite saying:
“That’s how a Learning Organization is supposed to work”.
· We will process 46 sponsorships. That means up to 1/3rd of participants will represent the Royal
· That represents $8,500 of conference revenue.
· 13 participants from the ROHCG Social Work community of practice
· 15 participants from the ROHCG Nursing community of practice
· 13 participants from the ROHCG Psychology community of practice (staff and students)
· 5 other allied health participants
When we began this CBT Education journey in 2005 Dr. Carlos Miura explained his vision of the ROHCG inheriting a culture of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and his hope that the ROHCG will become a world leader in CBT. I’m hopeful this initiative will move us much closer to his vision.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
A Breach of Trust?
As per our Blog Policy - the comments and opinions in this article are those of the author and do not represent the organization.
When I was asked to pinch-hit in the Communications Department there were a couple of internal communication practices/policies that I was determined to improve; the most significant was based on comments from staff focus groups and surveys that indicated your frustration with the lack of communication following safety and facility service incidents within our hospital walls.
I swore that would not happen while Communications served you under my watch!
We had the incident where magnetic door locks failed. I communicated (on behalf of Sr. Leadership) our concern and response within 24 hours to all ROMHC staff.
More recently we had a security breach in the change rooms of the ROMHC Gymnasium. Again, we communicated within two days after getting the details and action plan developed.
Let me add that we also present Staff Forum audio in place of written summaries. You may remember that Communications was criticised for softening, often neglecting the comments in their post-forum documents. Now you hear them as they happened.
I have received very kind feedback on this change of communications culture. But on February 24th I saw my internal email comments in the Ottawa Citizen in an article entitled "A Royal Mess". Our internal communication efforts were used by anti-P3 lobbyists as ammunition to serve their cause toward embarrassing the organization.
Maybe it's just me - but I felt betrayed! Can someone tell me how I can continue being responsive to staff's request for open and responsive communication when we can't trust that our expressions of regret and concern won't end up in the public media?
It's a cultural practice I want to maintain. But if you support the position that anything published internally is public domain and can be re-purposed in the public media, there's no way Leadership can risk being open, sincere, and honest through written communication.
If you are like me and upset that our internal communications appear in public newspapers then I urge you to say so to your labour representatives. Trust involves two sides.
I agreed with staff about the lack of communication through the years. It makes me sad if we can't change that because we can't trust that someone will use it for alternative political exploitation.
When I was asked to pinch-hit in the Communications Department there were a couple of internal communication practices/policies that I was determined to improve; the most significant was based on comments from staff focus groups and surveys that indicated your frustration with the lack of communication following safety and facility service incidents within our hospital walls.
I swore that would not happen while Communications served you under my watch!
We had the incident where magnetic door locks failed. I communicated (on behalf of Sr. Leadership) our concern and response within 24 hours to all ROMHC staff.
More recently we had a security breach in the change rooms of the ROMHC Gymnasium. Again, we communicated within two days after getting the details and action plan developed.
Let me add that we also present Staff Forum audio in place of written summaries. You may remember that Communications was criticised for softening, often neglecting the comments in their post-forum documents. Now you hear them as they happened.
I have received very kind feedback on this change of communications culture. But on February 24th I saw my internal email comments in the Ottawa Citizen in an article entitled "A Royal Mess". Our internal communication efforts were used by anti-P3 lobbyists as ammunition to serve their cause toward embarrassing the organization.
Maybe it's just me - but I felt betrayed! Can someone tell me how I can continue being responsive to staff's request for open and responsive communication when we can't trust that our expressions of regret and concern won't end up in the public media?
It's a cultural practice I want to maintain. But if you support the position that anything published internally is public domain and can be re-purposed in the public media, there's no way Leadership can risk being open, sincere, and honest through written communication.
If you are like me and upset that our internal communications appear in public newspapers then I urge you to say so to your labour representatives. Trust involves two sides.
I agreed with staff about the lack of communication through the years. It makes me sad if we can't change that because we can't trust that someone will use it for alternative political exploitation.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Dirty Dance
The opinions and comments in this article represent those of the author and not the ROHCG.
Sitting on the inside of the Communications Department for the past six months has confirmed my worst fear about the dirty dance between Corporate Communications and the Media. It’s a very costly exercise that doesn’t contribute much value to the organization. In fact it drains resources and energy from the core mission of the ROHCG.
My example is a recent rash of stories and phone calls around the controversial P3 model of the ROHCG. We all know how divisive this issue has become. It has put our Communications Department in a continuous position of defense for months.
When asked to assist in Communications I did what I always do when embarking into the unknown; I consulted the works of Peter Drucker. It took just minutes before I agreed that the primary objective of a Communications Department is to serve the staff – to address all communication needs required to enable our employees to be their best. The trap many Communications departments fall into is when they serve the corporate image above and beyond the internal needs of the organization.
It’s not an oversight on our part. Our skeleton team has unfortunately had to relegate our services to our colleagues in IMHR and Foundation out of necessity until it can return to capacity. Instead we are forced into “image protection” by an external media campaign that is relentless in its mission to tattoo P3 hospitals (and we are one big target) as enemies of public healthcare.
Guess who pays – you and me. Here’s an example:
· The communications team is forced to spend more time gathering information and taking counter-positions in dealing with the media each time a reporter calls
· It almost always requires a Leadership Team member to drop their work to be the official spokesperson for the counter-message
· To counteract the negative news, the department is led to believe it needs to amplify other media campaigns to place positive messaging into the community to raise its image profile
These are important actions, no doubt. But our social responsibility to this community, to this region, is to help the people who enter our building with a mental illness leave the building a healthier person, and to support the people who will continue to support the client when they return to the community. In today’s health care system we need every dollar, every person who can help us do that.
When an external group chooses to use the media to point out our shortcomings, or to debate issues like P3 in the media it’s like opening the door in January. Dollars, energy and effort get sucked out the door to deal with the media problem – and the cost to services and programs is significant.
I’ve been a reporter. I can now see this dance from both sides. I hope that someday, someone has the courage to change the rules of engagement with the media to put an end to this nonsense.
Sitting on the inside of the Communications Department for the past six months has confirmed my worst fear about the dirty dance between Corporate Communications and the Media. It’s a very costly exercise that doesn’t contribute much value to the organization. In fact it drains resources and energy from the core mission of the ROHCG.
My example is a recent rash of stories and phone calls around the controversial P3 model of the ROHCG. We all know how divisive this issue has become. It has put our Communications Department in a continuous position of defense for months.
When asked to assist in Communications I did what I always do when embarking into the unknown; I consulted the works of Peter Drucker. It took just minutes before I agreed that the primary objective of a Communications Department is to serve the staff – to address all communication needs required to enable our employees to be their best. The trap many Communications departments fall into is when they serve the corporate image above and beyond the internal needs of the organization.
It’s not an oversight on our part. Our skeleton team has unfortunately had to relegate our services to our colleagues in IMHR and Foundation out of necessity until it can return to capacity. Instead we are forced into “image protection” by an external media campaign that is relentless in its mission to tattoo P3 hospitals (and we are one big target) as enemies of public healthcare.
Guess who pays – you and me. Here’s an example:
· The communications team is forced to spend more time gathering information and taking counter-positions in dealing with the media each time a reporter calls
· It almost always requires a Leadership Team member to drop their work to be the official spokesperson for the counter-message
· To counteract the negative news, the department is led to believe it needs to amplify other media campaigns to place positive messaging into the community to raise its image profile
These are important actions, no doubt. But our social responsibility to this community, to this region, is to help the people who enter our building with a mental illness leave the building a healthier person, and to support the people who will continue to support the client when they return to the community. In today’s health care system we need every dollar, every person who can help us do that.
When an external group chooses to use the media to point out our shortcomings, or to debate issues like P3 in the media it’s like opening the door in January. Dollars, energy and effort get sucked out the door to deal with the media problem – and the cost to services and programs is significant.
I’ve been a reporter. I can now see this dance from both sides. I hope that someday, someone has the courage to change the rules of engagement with the media to put an end to this nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
