Comparison of Consumer Engagement Models/Frameworks
|
Source |
Levels of Engagement |
Steps within levels |
|
|
The Humboldt CE model looks at the various levels in which patients can engage in their care, both at an individual and a systemic level. It also provides personal characteristics that are amenable to fulfilling these positions, presumably to aid in the choosing of patients for these roles. Finally, it touches on the support that patients will need to successfully complete their roles. |
Partner in Care |
Help individual patients better manage their own health |
|
|
Partner in Care |
Support individuals to make more informed and better choices about their care |
||
|
Advisor |
Assist individuals to weigh in on patient experience (resulting in participation in quality improvement efforts) |
||
|
Advisor and Champion |
Foster and support champion patients as equal core members of committees that drive redesign and policy efforts at the highest levels |
||
|
Massachusetts Health Quality Partners |
|||
|
Source |
Levels of Engagement |
Steps within levels |
|
|
The Massachusetts CE model looks at both the levels and types of engagement. The model acts as a continuum and encompasses engagement at the personal, microsystem, organizational, and environmental levels. |
Plan |
Ask and Listen—a bidirectional relationship in which information is solicited and the public provides feedback to program leaders and policy makers. Persons and the public are invited to contribute their views and opinions |
|
|
Do |
Inform and Participate—a bidirectional relationship where policy makers make information available to the public and in turn, persons, and the public actively define the process and content of policies and initiatives. |
||
|
Study |
A necessary component of an engagement strategy is a plan to measure and evaluate its progress. Often there is a striking imbalance between the resources devoted to implementing an engagement campaign and the resources devoted to evaluating such activities |
||
|
Act |
A framework for engagement must include a mechanism for accountability and follow-through based upon the first three steps |
||
|
Source |
Levels of Engagement |
Steps within levels |
|
|
The National eHealth Collaborative has created a model in which various levels of consumer engagement are defined. The model progresses from giving information to a full partnership between patient and caregiver. The supporting information that this model provides act as a guidebook to enabling that step.This includes information on the situations in which the engagement should take place, documentation needed for the engagement to take place, and tools to facilitate the engagement. |
Inform Me/Give Me Information |
Patient Education Information for convenience Forms to Print e-Tools |
|
|
Engage Me |
EHR: Meaningful Use 1 Certified Patient access to records Patient reminders Patient Generated Data Administrative Tools Online e-Tools Forms on Line |
||
|
Empower Me |
EHR: Meaningful Use 2 certified Interactive Tools Online Quality Improvement “Inter-grated” Records e-visits Forms on Line |
||
|
Partner with Me and Caregiver/ Make us full members of my care team |
EHR: Meaningful Use 3 certified Shared Decision Making with response in the clinical record Interactive Tools Online “Extra-grated” Records Seamless integration across systems e-Tools to Help the Team Analytics/Quality |
||
|
Source |
Levels of Engagement |
Steps within levels |
|
|
The AIR model engages the consumer on three different levels: individual, system and society. It does so by offering a continuum of engagement that attempts to detail the patient engagement at each level. |
Direct Care |
Patient receives diagnosis;patients asked about treatment preference;joint treatment decision made |
|
|
Organizational design and governance |
Patient survey on care;patients join advisory council;patients co-lead safety and improvement committees |
||
|
Policy making |
Public agency has patient focus groups;patient recommendations on research priorities used;patients represented on allocation committees |
||