The document discusses optimal vs minimal communication between healthcare supporters and providers. It provides examples of minimal vs optimal communication for various stages of the grant process including:
- Grant review/decision notifications
- Letters of agreement
- Interim status updates
- Financial reconciliation
- Outcomes reporting
The optimal examples provide clear reasons for decisions, next steps, and opportunities for feedback. The final section identifies 7 potential barriers to optimal communication including differences in terminology, communication style, clarity, preferences, quantity of information, honesty, and specificity of language.
Supporter/Provider Communication: Optimal vs Minimal
1. The consequences of poor
communication in the
healthcare environment can
literally mean life or death.
The consequences of poor
communication between
supporters and Providers
can create a void of unmet
educational needs that
negatively impact patient
care.
Provider|Supporter Communication:
Optimal vs. Minimal
2. MINIMAL OPTIMAL
Supporter and/or
Grant
Management
System Website
Barebones information
No submission or grant review criteria
GMS difficult to navigate and/or unrealistic character
limitations/limited data upload capability
Does not request additional information or clarity
Excessive browser restrictions
Outdated language and/or questions
Clear concise information regarding areas of support/funding
availability; educational formats; outcomes preferences, i.e., priority
given to L5
Publicly available internal needs assessments
Submission criteria
Grant review criteria
Explanation of RFP process (if applicable)
GMS with user guide or tutorial
Requests additional information
Grant Review /
Decision
Decision notification exceeds timeframe listed
Basic form letter with no explanation or other information
sent via unmanned email account or USPS
No information relative to next steps
Timely decision or notification of delayed review/decision
Form letter sent via email to specified contact
If approved, immediate next steps, specific, honest reason(s) for
approval for less $ or decline
If not approved, point of contact for questions, appropriate
constructive feedback
Letter of
Agreement
No organization-specific Letter of Agreement
Letter of Agreement confusing or uses outdated language
Not able to add third-party(ies) to agreement
Difficult process for making edits
Poor instructions for LOA process
LOA uses clear language, is updated to reflect current standards,
requirements and appropriate language for CHE
LOA reflects all responsible parties
Clear description of steps to complete fully-executed LOA
Interim Status
Updates
No communication
Unclear expectations regarding interim updates, i.e., mode
of communication, content, frequency
No monitoring of funded education or inappropriate faculty
contact at funded activity
Written explanation of expectations for interim updates
Mechanism for providing interim updates driven by milestones
Point of contact for changes of scope or minor changes
Independently monitors funded education or maintains appropriate
contact at funded activity
Financial
Reconciliation
No or unclear instructions, expectations
Difficult to navigate submission process
Unrealistic timeframes or requirements for supporting
documentation
Clear instructions, requirements
Easy to navigate submission process
Realistic timeframes and requirements for provision of supporting
documentation
Outcomes
No acknowledgement of submitted outcomes data
No post-activity feedback—positive or negative
Unrealistic requests for Provider to re-create report using
“internal” template post-submission
Mechanism to report outcomes data across multiple related
activities
Mechanism to request additional information
Opportunities to review with/provide appropriate and constructive
feedback to Provider
Reasonable requests for post-submission data for internal
presentation
3. Grant Review / Decision: Minimal
“XYZ Pharma has reviewed your grant request and has determined that we are unable to
provide support for your proposal. XYZ has established strategic priorities for funding
grants and charitable donations and your request does not align with our current
strategic priorities.”
“Thank you for the opportunity to review your educational grant request. Unfortunately, at
this time, XYZ Pharma is unable to provide financial support for this program. Medical
Educational Grants are denied for one or more of the following eight reasons:
• Budgetary restrictions
• Do not meet XYZ Pharma's guidelines
• Do not meet XYZ’s educational objectives
• Amount of proposal not aligned with XYZ's interests
• Scope of proposal not aligned with XYZ's interests
• No response to Request for Additional information
• Incomplete grant proposal submission, or
• Failure to reconcile previous grant
Due to compliance reasons, we are unable to specify the reason for your denial”
“Thank you for your recent education grant request. The Grant Review Committee has
determined that XYZ is unable to provide support for your proposal.”
4. Grant Review/Decision: Optimal
“It is our regret to inform you that our grant review committee has denied your grant
submission for Program X for the following reason: No Alignment with Educational
Objectives.”
“Thank you for your interest in seeking an educational grant from XYZ Pharma. After
reviewing your proposal, regrettably we must decline your request for grant support.”
• Before this email was sent out, the supporter called the provider to discuss why the grant request was declined
After careful consideration and review, we regret to inform you that XYZ Pharma is
unable to provide funding for this activity for the following reasons:
• Budget limitations preclude us from funding your request at this time. Specifically, the level of grant activity in
this area of educational interest has exceeded available funding.
• The educational program presented in your request is not consistent with our current areas of educational
interest. Specifically, it does not align with currently posted CGAs (call for grant applications) with available
budget.”
“After careful consideration, we regret to inform you that your submitted Full Proposal
was not selected for funding by the external review panel. All requests were evaluated
based on their alignment with our educational focus and are compared to the specific
area of interest for this RFP.
• The Grant Officer aligned with this RFP will be reaching out within the next 2 weeks to provide a feedback form
that details the strengths and weakness of your proposal as noted by the external review panel. If you have
questions, please email BMcG@XYZpharma.com”
5. Barriers to Optimal Communication
1. Nomenclature/Terminology: Are we speaking
the same language?
2. Communication style: Directive vs. vague,
informational vs. accusatory
3. Clarity: Inadequate follow-up or failure to
obtain confirmation on expectations
4. Preference vs. Need: What we want or expect
vs. what is necessary or required
5. Quantity vs. Quality: Too much vs. the “right”
content/information
6. Honesty vs. Pacification: Communicating
truthfully vs. appeasement or circumvention
7. Broad vs. Specific: Using too broad language vs.
clear, specific communication