Oak Ridge Reservation: Health Needs Assessment Work Group

Health Needs Assessment Work Group

February 2, 2004 - Meeting Minutes

Attendance

NAWG/ORRHES Members:
Donna Mosby, James Lewis, David Johnson, Peggy Adkins, Karen Galloway, LC Manley, Bob Craig, Kowetha Davidson

Liaison:
Brenda Vowell

ATSDR:
Bill Taylor, Melissa Fish, Libby Howze, Terrie Sterling, Theresa NeSmith, Michael Hatcher, Susan Robinson, Subha Chandar, Lorine Spencer, Marilyn Horton

Meeting Agenda

• Call to Order (co-chair James Lewis)
• Introductions
• Approval of action items from 11/25/03 meeting
• Proposed workplan & timeline
• Use of GWU Document
• Next Meeting
• Adjourn

Approval of action items from 11/25/03 meeting

Postponed

Proposed workplan & timeline

Terrie Sterling

Discussion of proposed workplan and timeline

How to get feedback/participation in the focus groups & key resources?

• Be prepared to manage input, pick particular topics
• Focus groups focus the discussion...more sharper focus
• Community meetings good for soliciting community concerns
• Going to community leaders in rural areas to give us input, let them assist in delivering the messages to the community (trusted)
• Distinguish by neighborhoods beyond community, but also bring folks in by interest in a particular issue: birth defects, cancer health issues, other special interests

Is there a Faith-based network? Other networks?

• Don Box (subcommittee member)
• Active health councils; membership represents community & contacts to other groups. Quarterly meetings of all chairs.
• Have interviews with specific individuals to add to this; design questions to touch on each of the PHAs and contaminants of concern

What methods are best?

• Community meetings-
• Meeting for just the "downstreamers", for example. Capture the audience through issues, then break it down to a focus group.
• Concerned that we may create issues that don't exist, but the focus group technique and key informant interview method helps you be prepared so we don't create issues that don't exist. They help us be prepared to answer the question: "what do people know and don't know?"
• Important to know what the health professionals know.
• Bradbury/Jones Island – rural – a formal group – something based in the church – based in the community center. People will feel more apt to share. Do focus groups with trusted leaders to find out what they already know about environmental contamination
• Use newspapers and media
• Contractor choice is a critical decision.

Community can serve as a key resource?

Key resource used to recruit specific folks for a focused discussion? But shouldn't be confined to a certain selected group of people. There should be anonymity in selection for key resources.

What's the plan for getting people on board?

• Some of the NAWG members are interested in working on this? Who is gathering the information that will serve as folks to help carry out the plan? [James – we had a preliminary list].
• Translate into action? Has to be more tightly scheduled. Would need to be broader than the NAWG. Suggest getting input from the subcommittee tomorrow.
• Local contact person – to head up the literature review. Do it at the subcommittee tomorrow.

How to build in flexibility to get the busy people who want to participate?

• Key Resource interviews if applicable
• We should figure out a time to include

Mapping – where things were dumped? Blown? Etc. Is this in a way that people can understand? Within specific areas – can we show where plumes are? [Not seen this done before]

• GIS mapping can give us some of this information
• Use maps that are clearer than those in the PHAs
• Overlay the things we're finding out about on one map. Gives perspective and increases interest. Use PHA overlays and populations to make some of these maps.
• It's important to communicate the findings of the PHA, plumes, etc, in a way people can understand.
• Neighborhood map with dots for people with unexplained diseases- Peggy
• Need to have better maps (wags, swsa's)
• Note landmarks on maps to orient people to what they know

What are the advantages of lay focus group facilitation? Disadvantages?

• Makes community members feel comfortable. Drawback – sensitive issues that people might not want to talk about with community member.

Confidentiality?

• Training of community co-facilitators would address this + role of the focus group co-facilitator
• No outside observation of the focus group

Who is responsible for the selection?

• ATSDR + ORRHES

How do we reach the different audiences?

Make sure the communication of existing information that is targeted – e.g., "downstreamers," White Oak Creek, etc. We should show them that we are addressing their concerns

Someone, a key individual, should be a lead at Oak Ridge on each of the phases. Coverage of the different plan areas is an issue

• Get your input tonight was the first step – designate some folks to come up here – ad hoc mtgs. Identify and schedule the mtgs

Recommend the plan to ORRHES?

• This is not too different from the GWU, just filling in the gaps
• Present Phase I – needs assessment – supplement it with Proposed Plan – then Phase II for the ORRHES

Motion ORRHES recommends that ATSDR adopt the "Proposed Plan for Collecting Information about the ORR Community: Suggested Timeline" that is outlined as a process to fill the gaps that were left behind after the George Washington University study. This will be an opportunity for ORRHES members to sign up and participate themselves and or identify individuals in the community who might be willing to help carry out the plan. Donna Mosby – Motion Bob Craig – Second Approved – Unanimously

Use of GWU Document

Deferred to ORRHES meeting

Next Meeting

TBD after ORRHES meeting