Measuring institutional community engagement: Adding value to academic health systems.

Beyond medical schools' historical focus on pillar missions including clinical care, education, and research, several medical schools now include community engagement (CE) as a mission. However, most academic health systems (AHSs) lack the tools to provide metrics, evaluation, and standardization for quantifying progress and contributions of the CE mission. Several nationwide initiatives, such as that driven by the Institute of Medicine recommending advances in CE metrics at institutions receiving Clinical and Translational Science Awards, have encouraged the research and development of systematic metrics for CE, but more progress is needed. The CE components practical model provides a foundation for analyzing and evaluating different types of CE activities at AHSs through five components: research, education, community outreach and community service, policy and advocacy, and clinical care. At the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), an annual survey administered to faculty and staff assessed the types and number of CE activities from the prior year. Survey results were combined to create a CE report for departments across the institution and inform MCW leadership. Insights gathered from the survey have contributed to next steps in CE tracking and evaluation, including the development of a CE dashboard to track CE activities in real time. The dashboard provides resources for how individuals can advance the CE mission through their work and guide CE at the institutional level.

Towards a practical model for community engagement: Advancing the art and science in academic health centers.

INTRODUCTION: Community engagement (CE) has become more prevalent among academic health centers (AHCs), with significant diversity in practices and language. The array of approaches to CE contributes to confusion among practitioners. METHODS: We have reviewed multiple models of CE utilized by AHCs, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, and higher education institutions overall. Taking these models into consideration, we propose a comprehensive model of CE that encompasses a broader spectrum of activities and programs. RESULTS: The CE Components Practical Model includes 5 components: Community Outreach and Service, Education, Clinical Care, Research, and Policy and Advocacy. The components are supported by the foundational elements within administrative functions and infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: This model will accomplish the following: (1) reduce confusion about CE; (2) provide a broader understanding of CE; and (3) increase the ability of CE practitioners to interact with each other through this common reference and engage in advancing CE scholarship.