Members’ Session
Overall PDEP Futures Project Project Goal:
To confirm each partner group’s mandate; clarify the PDEP’s mandate
and function while identifying its strengths and limitations; and clarify
the terms and conditions under which each sector group will support
PDEP into the future.
Inside:
1. Context, Background, Introduction
p. 2
2. Gathering input on how to advance
PDEP’s functions
p. 3
Creates a Common Vision
p. 4
 To set the overall context for a conversation about the future of
PDEP
Develops, monitors and maintains the
currency of the integrated competencies
p. 7
 To gather input on how to advance PDEP’s 3 functions
Implements the Accreditation Standards
p. 10
 To determine tentative next steps re: this work
Maintains effective and efficient
Partnership operations.
p. 13
3. Closing Remarks and Next Steps
p. 14
4. App. A: Session Participants
p. 16
5. App. B: G. Zello Visual Aides
p. 18
6. App. C: W. Marsh Visual Aides
p. 19
Objectives for this Session:
June 10th in Ottawa
Context: Background & Introduction
G. Zello and W. Marsh provided comments on the events and larger context that framed this session. Here are the main points:
PDEP Futures Working Group 1st Year in Review (see slides, Appendix B)

G. Zello provided a high-level overview:
Nov, Dec 2009
Origins of PDEP

Since 2009
PDEP actions and
explorations
May 2013
Partners Working
Group on Future
Options created
June 2013
Victoria PDEP
Meeting, group
discussions on
PDEP’s future
June to Aug 2013
Fall 2013 – Summer 2014
Victoria debrief
Waves 1 & 2, consultation process re:
Facilitator engaged
 Legitimate mandate for PDEP;
 Accreditation coming under PDEP; and
 Other possible joint priorities.
WAVE 3 during the fall 2014/winter 2015 will involve validation of work to date and final recommendations.
W. Marsh, Introduction to this Session (see slides, Appendix C)
The results of the PDEP Futures Initiative to date (text box right) vs. the work commissioned
 Clearer Core Purpose

PDEP is an inter-organizational network (for more on this see: Popp
J. et al, Inter-organizational networks A critical review of the literature
to inform practice (February 2014)1.
 Clearer/tighter
supportive functions


1
2
Futures Results to Date

An Inter-organizational
network is 3 or more
organizations working
together toward a
common purpose.
While having the potential to achieve things that could not be
accomplished any other way, this organizational form has its
Popp, J. et al
challenges. The literature suggests that PDEP’s growing pains are
predictable, given acknowledged stages of development for nonprofit inter-organizational relationships. (see: Charles Lusthaus with Christine Milton-Feasby,
The Evaluation of Inter-Organizational Relationships in the Not-for-Profit Sector - Some
Observations (June 2006)2.
Success with inter-organizational networks depends on the level and quality of trust amongst
partners, which in turn is aided by the participants’ motivation and ability to collaborate and
engage in different forms of communication and decision-making.
 Added Decision-Criteria
re: Joint Initiatives
 Affirmed 3-3-3 Steering
Ctee Structure
 Affirmed DC as
Secretariat
 Emerging structure for
Accreditation under
PDEP (via MOU)
http://www.research4children.com/data/documents/NetworkLiReview-Feb27-2013-Final.pdf
http://www.universalia.com/sites/default/files/articles/fichiers/2006_ior_notforprofit.pdf
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
2
Context: Background & Introduction (cont’d)


It is assumed that real, other-centred curiosity will lead to: legitimate initiatives
advancing more quickly; communication that is clearer and more positive; trust
building; confidence rising at the Steering Committee level; and enhanced
PDEP/Steering Committee credibility overall.
The questions that the PDEP Futures Working Group+ would like the Members to
consider today are:
1.
2.
What if the annual Members’ meeting were used to gather ideas to inform
collaborative development of PDEP’s Work Plan by Function for the
upcoming year?
To what extent do the proposed PDEP Functions (right, and distributed in
advance) provide a useful framework for that process?
PDEP Proposed Functions
a. Creates a Common Vision for
the education and the practice to
inform future joint initiatives;
b. Develops, monitors and
maintains the currency of the
integrated competencies; and
c. Implements the Accreditation
Standards through collaborative
structures and processes.
d. Maintains effective and efficient
Partnership operations.
Gathering input on how to advance PDEP’s first 3 functions
The purpose of this exercise was to test the validity and usefulness of the proposed functions in focusing the work of PDEP. The
Futures Working Group+ considers the 4th proposed function to be an enabler of the other three. It was decided in planning this event
that the participants’ energies would be focused on the 1st three functions; the Working Group+ will use findings from this work will
help define the 4th function.
Each of the following 3 sections begins with the Dialogue Guide used to frame small group conversations about the proposed
function.
Each table was assigned one of the 3 functions to provide for good coverage. Table composition was pre-determined to ensure
diversity across Sector Partner Groups. A Futures Working Group+ member hosted each table, notes were taken, and the small
group reports back were digitally recorded to inform this summary report.
Note: This a synopsis of themes derived from small group work and doesn’t necessarily represent a synthesized, collective view or formal
consensus.
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
3
How to advance PDEP’s first 3 functions (cont’d)
Small Group Context for dialogue regarding
the PDEP Function (a):
In carrying out its Core Purpose, PDEP:

Informs future joint initiatives by creating a common vision for the
education and the practice
Sector Partner Groups’ respective stated interests in this Core Function
Dietitians of Canada
Identifying areas of
collaboration that are important
to move the education and
practice forward to meet future
health needs of society
Alliance of Regulatory Bodies
Regulatory bodies are legislated provincially for the primary purpose of
ensuring the Canadian public receives safe, competent and ethical
dietetic services as the profession of dietetics evolves. By being a
partner in the creation of a common vision, regulatory bodies can
proactively develop a supporting framework of standards and other
regulatory mechanisms at the provincial level.
Educators
As a partner in the creation of a common vision,
educators can proactively shape programs to
meet current and emerging practice needs, so
that dietitians can contribute to addressing the
food, nutrition and health needs of society.
Content Question for Dialogue:
1. The purpose of a common vision is to inform choices about joint initiatives that PDEP might undertake. What do you think are
areas in need of visionary thinking and action where the Partners’ interests intersect?
For example, some might say that health human resource planning could be reflected in a common vision. To what extent do
you agree? If you do agree, what role(s) do you see PDEP playing?
2. What might be other priority areas in need of visionary thinking and that align with PDEP’s core purpose?
Process Question for Dialogue:
What are your ideas about the best ways to build on today’s work to create a genuinely common vision for the education and the
practice?
Feeding the FAQs for this Function:
Be sure to capture relevant questions for which answers don’t seem to be in the room today. We will get the PDEP Steering
Committee to wrestle them to the ground and provide answers in the weeks to come.
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
4
Areas in need of visionary thinking and action where the Partners’ interests intersect (in
no particular order)
1. Development of a cohesive, organized forum for communication among educators , so that
representatives can speak with one voice. * How might PDEP support the Educators’
group to ‘meet’ regularly and come forward with elements of a common that they would
like to move forward? That might require some funds and support from a facilitator.
2. Communication that provides for a 2-way flow*. How do we become clearer, overall in our
communication? We put out messaging, but it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.
Solutions might include:
PDEP Proposed Function
a. Creates a Common Vision for
the education and the practice to
inform future joint initiatives;
* Deemed near-term
priorities by one
group
a. Creation of SMART goals
b. Interpreting high-level messages and repackaging them in brief e-mails so that they provide brief updates to each of
the sectors
3. Given the changing landscape relative to how we are practicing, the Vision should look at:
a. Ensuring ongoing clarity in the role of the dietitian;
b. Inter-professional education;
c. Scope of Practice. Increasingly, we have dietitian roles that have expanded to include insulin adjustment, dysphagia
management, etc. People might require and benefit from additional training relative to those. How do we provide
that?
d. Routes to practice, for example:
 Management, accreditation and regulation of self-directed practicums
 How we deal with the assessment of internationally-educated dietitians coming to Canada (with implications for
regulators including cross-border issues and standards)
e. Mobility within the profession, for example from community to clinical. What kind of process could be introduced to
make sure that the transition flows well and is not only comfortable for the dietitian changing practice areas but also
safe for the public. This might take the form of some type of specialty credentialing.
f.
Advanced practice, in terms of standards of care that require advanced practice competencies (i.e. whether a masters
degree, continuing education for special skills, or even at entry level).
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
5
Areas in need of visionary thinking and action (cont’d)
4. Advocacy. Develop a common vision and advocate for (for example):
a. Work force planning. It might be implicit in the function statement itself, but one
group felt we should state clearly that PDEP advocates for a common vision for
practice/education with other health professionals (e.g. relative to health human
resource planning) … promoting dietitians and what they do.
b. Training of and placements for students
PDEP Proposed Function
a. Creates a Common Vision for
the education and the practice
to inform future joint initiatives;
c. Appropriate jobs for RDs
5. Would training preceptors be a future area of competency development? Work would be needed to better understand the
competencies we’d be training to.
Best ways to build on today’s work to create a genuinely common vision for the education and the practice
1. In terms of process we need a combination of methods to develop the vision:
a. National surveillance at all levels
b. A forum for capturing emerging issues. Perhaps something like this face-to-face meeting could be that forum, every
year (or two or three).
c. What if we were able to do work amongst the sector groups regionally?
d. Other methods of communication
2. Standardize the review of integrated competencies and accreditation standards (following a predetermined calendar of milestones)*.
a. Feedback and input on pilot accreditations and standards
* Deemed a nearterm priority by one
group
b. ICDEP
o
Design of a system to evaluate ICDEP
o
o
Evaluation and revision of ICDEP
Getting the ICDEPs out there should be part of PDEP’s role. There could be more support for making sure the
new ICDEPs for entry-level practice are clear. As we move into accreditation, it is a problem for people to
interpret things that are still at a high level, such as:
 Sims vs. practical training; • Ratings; • # of weeks for practicum; and • PLAR
How to advance PDEP’s first 3 functions (cont’d)
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
6
In carrying out its Core Purpose, PDEP:
Small Group Context for dialogue
regarding the PDEP Function (b):

Develops, monitors and maintains the currency of the integrated
competencies
Sector Partner Groups’ respective stated interests in this Core Function
Dietitians of Canada
Seeing that dietetics
education and practice keep
pace with evolving quality
standards for health services
and health needs of society
Alliance of Regulatory Bodies
Regulatory bodies exercise their public protection mandate when
they ensure that only qualified applicants enter practice.
Regulatory bodies must approve entry to practice standards and
ensure they reflect current dietetic practice when dietitians enter
practice. Competency standards give regulators a framework for
developing competency assessment tools such as the Canadian
Dietetic Registration Exam (CDRE).
Educators
Educators utilize the integrated competencies as a
framework for program design and learner assessment.
They are committed to participating in the development,
monitoring, evaluation and continuous improvement of
the competencies, to ensure that they reflect current and
emerging practice needs.
Content Question for Dialogue:
During the Wave I consultations, there was a sense that defining competencies is one thing and announcing them is another, but
that some sort of overall support is needed at the system level to ensure implementation is truly standardized across the country.
1. What priorities should PDEP consider building into its work plan in terms of ensuring implementation is truly standardized
across the country?
2. What other priorities should PDEP build into its work plan relative to monitoring and maintaining the currency of the integrated
competencies?
Process Question for Dialogue:
What are your ideas about the best ways to build on today’s work to address those priorities?
Feeding the FAQs for this Function:
Be sure to capture relevant questions for which answers don’t seem to be in the room today. We will get the PDEP Steering
Committee to wrestle them to the ground and provide answers in the weeks to come.
PDEP Proposed Function
Ensuring implementation is truly standardized
b.
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
Develops, monitors and
maintains the currency of the
integrated competencies
7
General Observations: National standardization is very difficult; some flexibility is needed (e.g. in language). Also, we want
standardization, but we don’t want to lose the aspects of a program that makes it unique.
Also, see relevant comments generated by groups looking at the proposed Vision function (p. 6, item 2(b). Standardize the review
of integrated competencies and accreditation standards
Specific Suggestions:
1. Reflections on the accreditation experience are useful as feedback on competencies. Use information that DC has collected
through its highlights reports concerning implementation as well as feedback through annual reports on how accreditation
implementation is going.
2. Ensure accreditation ‘loops back’ and provides another way to capture and share implementation experience across Canada.
3. Do a follow up to the 2012 gap analysis process to identify outstanding problems.
4. Ensure more consistent interpretation of ICDEP. A common assumption is that educators are isolated
and working alone, in need of some body to make the connections and deposit useful information.
Ideas included:
a. Develop more tools and methods to assist implementation by facilitating discussion re: ICDEP
interpretation. For example:
 Forums
 FAQs
 Sharing of learning strategies
 On-line manual/resources
 Blog: list-serve for posting questions
It was noted that there are
discrepancies between the
interpretation of the
competencies in English
and in French
 An interpretative guide for competencies that lack clarity
b. Consider PDEP to be a kind of ‘hub’ that stores all of the information, perhaps:
 Designate a person or small group nationally to be the ‘point person(s)’ for questions/interpretations;
 Use a (hired) person to help educators make connections / act as a knowledge broker;
 Create an accessible a library, designed/managed by someone with library science qualifications.
c. Share more about the Canadian Dietetic Registration Exam (CDRE), and how the information from that exam could be
used to help evaluate whether programs are teaching to the new competencies. Look at the CDRE pass rate (although
it’s late in the learning process to be determining that the competencies aren’t there).
Ensuring implementation is truly standardized (cont’d)
PDEP Proposed Function
b. Develops, monitors and
maintains the currency of the
integrated competencies
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
8
5. Do more work relative to controversial competencies3, standardized learning plans and use of OSCEs.
6. Establish a better understanding of what practice vs. simulation really looks like.
Monitoring and maintaining the currency of the integrated competencies
1. Have PDEP inform education and regulation by capturing/updating what is changing at point of entry to practice
a. Update from each area of practice/competency re: concepts, ideas, technology
b. Survey dietitians in the workforce around the future so as to inform competency development
c. Perhaps the accreditation function could include a resource person for such interpretation.
d. Facilitate the sharing of what’s changing:
o
o
Practice –––––––––––> educators/regulators
Innovation –––––––––> educators/regulators
o
Educators/Regulators ––––––––> ICDEP
The promise of PDEP.
Capitalize on each having
different ‘windows’.
PDEP should sort out whose responsibility it is to make sure that this information flow is happening.
2. What are the emerging new practices that need to be reflected in the competencies?
a. How is practice changing? e.g. where is International Dietetics and Nutrition Terminology (IDNT) being implemented?
b. Need an environmental scan and research concerning the work force to inform competency updates
c. Consider labour mobility
3. Share the common assessment tool developed in Ontario.
3
DELFO’s March workshop on ‘problem’ performance indicators was cited as having been very helpful
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
9
Small Group Context for dialogue
regarding the PDEP Function (c):
In carrying out its Core Purpose, PDEP:

Implements the Accreditation Standards through collaborative structures and processes
Sector Partner Groups’ respective stated interests in this Core Function
Dietitians of Canada
Supporting a quality assurance system
that promotes and supports programs
that attract and retain students and
interns, and that lead to attainment of
dietetics competencies as needed and
expected by those who employ and
rely on services of dietitians
Alliance of Regulatory Bodies
Registration is a key regulatory function that protects the
public by ensuring that only qualified applicants enter
practice. Regulatory bodies rely on accreditation for the
purpose of ensuring safe, competent dietetic practice at
point of entry into the profession. Regulatory body
interest in the development of accreditation standards
and the accreditation process is rooted in our legal
responsibility to either approve education programs or
approve the agency responsible for accreditation.
Educators
Educators utilize accreditation standards and guidelines
as key tools for program planning and curricular
development. They value the contribution that
accreditation processes make towards ensuring that
programs meet minimum quality standards, are
sustainable, continuously improve and strive for
innovation. Accreditation status provides an opportunity
for programs to be recognized, both internally and
externally, for excellence in professional practice
education.
Question for Dialogue:
A Joint Communiqué on Accreditation issued in March indicated that PDEP would be exploring with the 3 Sector Groups, the
merits of considering a model that would see:

Governance of accreditation come under PDEP;

Operational management and decision-making about program accreditation become the responsibility of a new PDEP
Council for Accreditation; and

Administration of the accreditation services rest with a contracted Service Provider (Dietitians of Canada).
Preliminary thinking around potential structure and role descriptions were also provided in the Joint Communiqué and are being
refined with a view to appointing members of the PDEP Council for Accreditation in September.
As this continues to unfold, what is your best advice on how to advance this important function including the model’s collaborative
structures and processes?
Feeding the FAQs for this Function:
Be sure to capture relevant questions for which answers don’t seem to be in the room today. We will get the PDEP Steering
Committee to wrestle them to the ground and provide answers in the weeks to come.
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
10
Best advice on how to advance this important function including the model’s collaborative
structures and processes
General Observations: Some people are concerned about this moving too fast. For PDEP to do
this well will require a lot of work … i.e. continuing to monitor and developing the processes
around it.
PDEP Proposed Function
c.
Implements the Accreditation
Standards through collaborative
structures and processes
There are also concerns that fees will be added to ensure sustainability.
Shouldn’t the function also include: “ Develops, monitors, maintains currency?”
Specific Suggestions:
1. Communications:
a. We can’t rely on chains for communication. Determine the best way to communicate … what is communicated out, how,
by whom, and to whom.
b. Then convey clearly more detailed information to all partners:
 A clear timeline for when the pilot will start. This will help all university partners know how to prepare and when to
start evaluation.
 What piloting means (as opposed to established accreditation). How it differs from the real accreditation that will
follow later.
 The reasoning behind the questions (the lack of which causes anxiety and undermines trust).
 The level or degree of evidence required
 What constitutes a reasonable interpretation (includes being resource-able within an institution). Let’s not pursue
standardization so heavily that we’re dealing with books of definitions. Rather, as a way to learn and grow, have
conversations about what a reasonable interpretation of the standards looks like.
 Tools that will be used … will they be the same? A lot of tools seem to be missing to help prepare for accreditation.
 The structure that will receive and address feedback and make adjustments both during and after the pilot.
o Perhaps form a Working Group to do address the pilot, receive ongoing feedback and make adjustments.
o Information must be shared re: pilots for new standards (to enable learning from pilot sites as we go)
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
11
Best advice on how to advance this important function (cont’d)
2. Remember that accreditation is a quality assurance framework … i.e. it is about feedback
loops, about learning from, and about sharing the information. It’s not about the pass/fail of
a program.
PDEP Proposed Function
c.
Implements the Accreditation
Standards through collaborative
structures and processes
a. Provide a tailored report back to the accredited organization to meet their needs in developing and sustaining their
program (not a highly standardized report but a personalized one); and
b. Communicate the results of accreditation processes to others as we go, so everyone can learn from the experiences;
c. Will results be shared with the regulators or just with the educational institutions?
d. Reflections upon debrief regarding QA standards would help avoid this being top-down.
3. People would like to have known more before commenting but how will this be operationalized?
a. The educators’ voice and input are essential.
b. Faster processes are needed; they are currently slow (provisional to full) and there are related program concerns and
safety concerns.
c. We need to strike the balance between having concrete operating processes and ensuring flexible and fluid processes.
d. Will the model it vary depending on the type of program … e.g. integrated internship?
4. Continued sustainability:
a. Is membership still voluntary? There are concerns that there will be added fees to ensure sustainability.
b. Has to be digital and easier, in order to be sustainable.
c. There are concerns about the number of accreditors required to survey multiple sites.
5. Clarify roles:
a. More information is needed concerning the role and structure of the PDEP Accreditation Council and the Service Provider.
b. Why are multiple layers needed? … i.e. what is the role of the PDEP Steering Ctee vs. the Accreditation Council, vs. the
Service Agency?
c. How is the decision regarding the Service Provider going to be made? What criteria will be used? More info is needed.
6. Accountability and fee structures (which is related to communication of information and sharing)
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
12
Small Group Context for dialogue
regarding the PDEP Function (d):
In carrying out its Core Purpose, PDEP:

Maintains effective and efficient Partnership operations.
As mentioned earlier, the Futures Working Group+ considers the 4th proposed function to be an enabler of the other three. It was
decided in planning this event that the participants’ energies would be focused on the 1st three functions. Although input wasn’t
specifically sought, here are the thoughts of one group concerning PDEP operations:
1. At this stage, PDEP should deal with some operational issues:
a. Adopt an operational decision-making tool that makes it clear what goes into decisions and their rationale
b. Develop a values framework
c. Do strategic planning
d. Develop standardized mechanisms for communication and reporting decisions
2. One group issued a caution regarding moving forward with a couple of ‘really big things’ still on the table. Specifically, a lot of
work is needed to finish off accreditation and perhaps even the competencies.
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
13
Closing Remarks and Next Steps
According to the chart below, the challenges that PDEP faces as a network are to be expected at this point in its evolution
(somewhere between stages 2 and 3).
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
14
Closing Remarks and Next Steps (cont’d)
The findings from this session will help the Partnership continue to shift into the Maturity Stage and adopt more of a results
orientation.
Specifically, a work plan will be developed that is consistent with the purpose, functions and decision criteria that the Futures
Working Group+ has proposed.
Details of that work plan should be available to the Members in the Fall.
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
15
Appendix A
June 10th Members’ Session Participants
Name
Organization
Name
Kayla
Charna
Terri
Michelle
Leslie
Natasha
Organization
Brescia University College
UT MPH - CN
Brescia University
College of Dietitians of Manitoba
London Health Sciences Centre
Saskatoon Health Region
Anderson
Arseneau
Bates
Berenbaum
Berube
Bouchard
Barb
Geneviève
Heidi
Shawna
Sonia
Joanie
Acadia University
New Brunswick Association of Dietitians
University of Alberta
University of Saskatchewan
Université de Moncton
Ordre professionnel des diététistes du Québec
Glynn
Gord
Grad
Hagglund
Harden
Haskey
Brockest
Buccino
Burke
Buscher
Carrier
Cividin
Beverly
Jennifer
Tracie
Lori
Natalie
Theresa
IDPP-Ryerson University
The Hospital for Sick Children
University Health Network
Ryerson University
Université de Moncton
Vancouver Coastal Health
Hewko
Hubbard
Knox
Koski
Lemire
Lengyel
Sarah
Fern
Carolyn
Kristine
Nicole
Christina
DC Board of Directors
College of Dietitians of BC
PEI Dietitian's Registration Board
McGill University
University of Ottawa
University of Manitoba
Cook
Cook
Daneault
Driedger
Eisenbraun
Everett
Doug
Douglas
Suzanne
Lorna
Corinne
Deborah
College of Dietitians of Alberta
DC Board of Directors
Université d'Ottawa
College of Dietitians of Alberta
Dietitians of Canada
Capital District Health Authority
Liefhebber
Lordly
MacLellan
Marsch
Marsh
McLearn
Monica
Daphne
Debbie
Phyllis
Wayne
Michelle
Vancouver Island Health Authority
Mount Saint Vincent University
University of PEI
DC Board of Directors
Independent Facilitation Services
DC Board of Directors
Foote
France
Galibois
Garcia
Garus
Gignac
Connie
Rioux
Isabelle
Alicia C.
Jennifer
Mary Lou
Acadia University
Université d'Ottawa
Université Laval
Brescia University College
Nova Scotia Dietetic Association
College of Dietitians of Ontario
Moore
Morris
Omstead
Payne
Phillips
Pilat Burns
Lana
Melanie
Megan
Ann
Sandy
Charlotte
Saskatchewan Dietitians Association
DC Board of Directors
Ryerson University
Université Laval
McGill University
Saskatchewan Dietitians Association
Gillis
Doris
St Francis Xavier University
Raftis
Denise
Northern Ontario School of Medicine
Prescod
Reid
Alexia
Laura
University of Guelph
St Francis Xavier University
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
16
Name
Organization
Name
Organization
Rioux
France
Université d'Ottawa
Tomalik
Helen
St. Michael's Hospital
Roebothan
Barbara
Memorial University
Traviss
Karol
UBC
Savoie
Nadya
The Moncton Hospital
Vandenbussche
Katherine
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Savoie
Nathalie
DC Board of Directors
Wadsworth
Laurie
DC Board of Directors
Sharp
Marsha
DC Board of Directors
Walker
Sharon
Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Simpson
Patrice
DC Board of Directors
Whalen
Cynthia
NLCD
Skaff
Dina
University of Ottawa
Wyatt
Marlene
Dietitians of Canada
Smith
Linda
University of Prince Edward Island
Yeudall
Fiona
Ryerson University
Spencer
Nicole
DC Board of Directors
Zello
Gordon
University of Saskatchewan
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
17
Appendix B
Visuals used by G. Zello
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
18
Appendix C
Visuals used by W. Marsh
PDEP Futures Initiative – Wave 2 Members’ Session
19