(written by John Shreve)
March 25, 2014
- Dennis Domer (KU)
- John Shreve (KU)
- Greg Corpier (Telecare Global)
- Katie Boyer (Telecare Global)
- Eric Humes (Keystone Technology)
- John Thompson (Keystone Technology)
- Andy Belval (Keystone Technology)
- Stefan Adams (Keystone Technology)
1) Dennis provided an update on the Campus Village (CV) project in Lawrence, and relayed a conversation that he had with the land owner/developer, John McGrew. Mr. McGrew is interested in discussing new ideas for how technology can play an important role in the intergenerational project, which is scheduled to break ground in April or May. Dennis facilitated a meeting time between Mr. McGrew and the WebEx participants, tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, April 2 in Lawrence.
2) Dennis commented that Mr. McGrew became more interested in the potential role of new technology infrastructures following Greg and Katie’s presentation at the last CV Board Meeting. He also described three CV design criteria that would be important for Mr. McGrew to consider (a) universal design, (b) visibility design of exterior spaces, and (c) implementing an architectural review committee. Mr. McGrew was amenable to these suggestions.
3) Dennis described Mr. McGrew’s development plan as being divided into two phases. The 30 acres on the west side of his property would be held for a later phase that may include KU facilities, a Lawrence Memorial Hospital clinic, multi-family residential, and other “denser development” uses. The 30 acres on the east side would be designated for single family residential, controlled by covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Approximately one-third of the lots have already been pre-sold.
4) Gene Meyer, one of the CV board members and President and CEO of Lawrence Memorial Hospital (LMH), remarked at the last board meeting that he has put the CV project into next year’s strategic plan. The main issues that LMH is facing include (a) the need to develop more primary care physician capacity in Lawrence, (b) the need to develop more regional relationships, and (c) the need to develop a level of health systems care to improve efficiency and coordination, and decrease duplication. These concerns may not necessarily translate to “buildings” but may focus more on clinical operating systems and technology-based efficiency and programming.
5) Dennis also pointed out that LMH is working with Cerner, and that I-70 group would have to work within this context, which may point to an “agnostic” systems approach.
6) Eric commented that this sounds like a very good opportunity that is “teed up” well for us to respond with ideas on how to capitalize on Mr. McGrew’s plan to include fiber throughout the development, and also to introduce ideas that have been generated over the past four years by the Virtual Integrated Village (ViV) discussions at KU.
7) Katie confirmed that “light bulbs” went on at the board meeting after their presentation, and that the process would unfold “one step at a time.”
8) Greg added that Mr. McGrew had no idea that this technology was even possible, which helped to stir his interests.
9) John agreed that this all sounded positive, but advised that whoever will attend the meeting next Wednesday (April 2) with Mr. Mc McGrew Grue should plan an agenda and approach beforehand. He encouraged the call participants to think about what “it” is that will be presented and discussed, so that everyone is on the same page.
10) Eric offered that we define “it” at different levels, which may include discussion points about vision, mission, etc. and keep the conversation at a high level without getting into technological jargon. Important issues for Keystone would include, for example, the following:
- Making good decisions about the technology infrastructure strategy;
- Fiber optic can mean a lot of things: this approach should also be clarified;
- Ensuring that a broad scale of technology needs are met, including end-user devices and training for use/operation;
- How to collect information from residents (eg. sensors), and how that data may be utilized and managed by Cerner, and possibly the I-70 network.
11) On the Cerner issue, Greg commented that the technology infrastructure needs to function as a bridge/gateway to Cerner, so that data can work into their software systems.
12) Eric responded that the sensors will collect data, which will need to be stored somewhere – for example through a HL7 interface, with which Keystone works.
13) Greg agreed that this was exactly what Telecare Global was expecting.
14) Eric asked if Greg already had sensors in mind, and if he was planning on releasing more information in the near future.
15) Greg commented that Telecare Global already has their own version. Katie added that they are also partnering with other companies on this issues as well, with more information coming at a later date.
16) Eric returned to the idea of the bullet point list, and suggested that we review some of the past ideas from our ViV work sessions at KU. He also asked if food/agriculture was something, for example, that might be brought up in Wednesday’s meeting.
17) Katie commented that this was already discussed and rejected by Mr. McGrew.
18) John reminded the group that the Prairie Commons project in Olathe is developing their entire project around this concept, which has been already been designed with significant detail. This and other ViV aspects will be integrated throughout the intergenerational village.
19) Eric also asked if M.U. and Dr. Skubic would join the meeting.
20) Katie doubted that they would attend, but mentioned that Telecare Global could represent their experience and approach.
21) Eric asked what other points may be discussed at the meeting.
22) John suggested that a brief overview of industry trends may also be helpful, to put the conversation in perspective.
23) Katie added that funding issues would also be relevant.
24) The final discussion point was raised by Eric, who noted that Keystone has recently established an agreement with a St. Louis-based grant writer who may prove useful to future initiatives to I-70 network activities.
25) The group agreed to have each individual think more about the list of bullet point items and presentation approach for next Wednesday’s meeting, and regroup on Tuesday’s scheduled WebEx call to review further.