BACKGROUND Roger’s House is a pediatric hospice located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The Hospice is affiliated with the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Palliative Care Outreach Team and is dependent upon many partnerships to provide comprehensive pediatric palliative care. As part of Roger’s House Board of Directors Strategic Plan ( ) 1, the hospices partners were identified and surveyed. Vision Collaboration and accountability to families and community partners are focal points of Roger’s House’s Mission, Vision and Values Statement. 2 Partnership Defined “Partnerships between organizations, groups or agencies denote a particular type of relationship in which one or more common goals, interests and /or dependencies are identified, acknowledged and acted upon, but in which the autonomy and separate accountabilities of the partner organizations can remain untouched.” 3 OBJECTIVES To evaluate current partnerships in place at Roger’s House, further develop and nurture these with partnering organizations as well as work towards positive partnerships in palliative care. METHODS Three categories of partners were surveyed using 2 different surveys: the Family Satisfaction Assessment Survey (2008) 4 and the Roger’s House Pediatric Hospice Partner Survey (2008) 5 Those surveyed included: Children/youth/families cared for at Roger’s House Medical teams and /or services involved in the care of children/youth and families who use Roger’s House Non-clinical partners involved with service provision at Roger’s House The surveys included open ended and Likert scale type questions. Surveys were analyzed for emergent themes and subsequently, these were matched to the criteria listed in Box 1. Box 1 Criteria for Successful Partnership Outcomes 6 1.Effectiveness 2.Efficiency 3.Equity 4.Acceptability 5.Accessibility 6.Appropriateness 7.Accountability 8.Ethical consideration 9.Responsiveness One Voice One Vision of Partnership: A Collaborative Enterprise Lynn Grandmaison Dumond, RN(EC), MScN, Lloyd Cowin, M.H.A. Roger’s House Pediatric Hospice, 399 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1 Other Medical Teams/Services n=46 Non-clinical Partners n=11 References 1.Roger’s House Board of Directors (2007). Strategic Plan for , Ottawa, Ontario. 2.Roger’s House Board of Directors (2006). Roger’s House Mission, Vision and Values, Ottawa, Ontario. 3.Glendinning, C. (2002). Partnerships between health and social services: Developing a framework for evaluation. Policy and Politics, 30, Roger’s House (2008). Family Satisfaction Survey Assessment survey, Ottawa, Ontario. 5.Roger’s House (2008). Roger’s House Pediatric Hospice Partner Survey, Ottawa, Ontario. 6.Walshe, C., Caress, A., Chew-Graham, C., & Todd, C. (2007). Evaluating partnership working: lessons for palliative care. European Journal of Cancer Care, 16, Acknowledgement: We wish to thank Roger’s House, its staff and families as well as all of its wonderful partners for sharing their expertise with us. ANALYSIS Roger’s House Family Satisfaction Assessment Survey (2008) The response rate for the survey was 25/63 (40%) 96.8% of families were satisfied with Roger’s House & services. Table 1 Services Accessed at Roger’s House (all that applied) Table 2 Satisfaction of Families regarding Services at Roger’s House (values indicated in %) Table 3 Emergent Themes and Relevant Comments ` Roger’s House Pediatric Hospice Partner Survey (2008) The response rate for the survey was 57/100 (57%). Respondents had been Roger’s House partners for 1-3 years (41%) or > 3 years (54%) and were members of the health care team ( 81%) or non-clinical partners (19%). 93% of respondents rated their partnership with Roger’s House and its staff as somewhat exceptional or exceptional. Table 4 Frequency of Interaction with Individuals at Roger’s House (n=54) Table 5 Response of Roger’s House and its Staff to Partner Organization’s Needs (values indicated in %) Table 6 Emergent Themes and Relevant Comments Child/Youth/Family n=25 DISCUSSION The family and partner surveys were initiated to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of existing relationships with Roger’s House and its team. Response rates for the surveys were fair but the quality of responses was rich and offered much to consider in evaluating service delivery. Limitations: Though the two surveys were not identical and could not be compared directly they yielded similar themes and content. Future Plans: The use of one survey to evaluate all partnerships/relationships with Roger’s House and its staff. Using the Criteria for Successful Partnership Outcomes 6 (Box 1) as an outline for survey design and analysis would be useful. In reviewing both surveys, it is evident that Roger’s House and its staff demonstrate a number of the criteria for successful partnership outcomes. Most frequently represented in the surveys were the following criteria: responsiveness, effectiveness, accessibility and acceptability. Communication was rated highly in both surveys but is an area that was also identified as requiring attention. Strategies to enhance communication between all partners will be explored in this quality assurance initiative.

Discussion Partnerships were rated highly Similar themes were identified in both the Parent and Partner surveys. Most frequently comments related to What has come out of this? Limitation of Future plans: Redesign of survey to assess all partnerships based on the accepted criteria for successful partnerships The analysis of responses according to Walsh et al, (2007) Criteria for Successful Partnership Outcomes… Survey design did not take into account all criteria In the future, we will plan to design our surveys to reflect all One survey will be given to all partners including parents Criteria for Successful Partnership Processes 6 Acknowledging the need for partnership Clarity and realism of purpose Commitment and ownership Developing and maintaining trust Clear and robust partnership arrangements Engage in monitoring, review and organizational learning References 1.Glendinning, C. (2002). Partnerships between health and social services: Developing a framework for evaluation. Policy and Politics, 30, Walshe, C., Caress, A., Chew-Graham, C., & Todd, C. (2007). Evaluating partnership working: lessons for palliative care. European Journal of Cancer Care, 16, Roger ’ s House (2008). Family Satisfaction Survey Assessment survey. 4.Roger ’ s House Board of Directors (2007). Strategic Plan for Roger ’ s House (2008). Roger ’ s House Pediatric Hospice Partner Survey. 6.Roger ’ s House Board of Directors (2006).Roger ’ s House Mission, Vision and Values. Child/Youth/Family n=25 Other Medical Teams/Services n=46 Non-clinical Partners n=11

ANALYSIS Roger’s House Pediatric Hospice Partner Survey (2008) The response rate for the survey was 57/100 (57%). Most of the respondents had been Roger’s House partners for 1-3 years (22/54, 41%) or > 3 years (29/54, 54%) and were members of the health care team (46/57, 81%) or non-clinical partners (11/57, 19%). When asked about the quality of their existing partnership, 93% of respondents rated it as somewhat exceptional or exceptional. Table 1 Frequency of Interaction with Individuals at Roger’s House (n=54) Table 2 Response of Roger ’ s House and its Staff to Partner Organization ’ s Needs (values indicated in %) Table 3 Emergent Themes and Relevant Comments DISCUSSION ANALYSIS Roger’s House Family Satisfaction Assessment Survey (2008) The response rate for the survey was 25/63 (40%) The survey included open ended The respondents were families of children who had received services at Roger’s House. Table 4 Services Accessed at Roger’s House (all that applied) Table 5 Satisfaction of Families regarding Services at Roger’s House Table 6 Emergent Themes and Relevant Comments