Transcript Document
National Core Indicators
Performance at the State
System Level
Val Bradley and Sarah Taub HSRI
John Sloyer Pennsylvania OMR
February 19, 2003
Project Beginnings
NASDDDS
and HSRI collaboration
Launched in 1997
Seven field test states (plus steering
committee)
~60 candidate performance indicators
Development of data collection
instruments
What has NCI Accomplished?
Nationally
recognized set of
performance and outcome indicators for
developmental disabilities service
systems
Reliable data collection methods & tools
Baseline and trend data at the state &
national level
Benchmarks of performance
NCI Structure
Currently 22 states plus Orange
County in Phase V (FY2003)
HSRI provides technical assistance under
subcontract to NASDDDS
Subcommittees address specific issues
Meet with full steering committee annually
Funded primarily through state
participation fees
Participating States Phase V
WA
ME
VT
MT
MA
WY
SD
RI
PA
IA
NE
UT
IL
IN
WV
DE
KY
NC
AZ
OK
SC
Orange
County
AL
HI
CT
What are the Core Indicators?
Consumer
Outcomes:
Employment
Community
Inclusion
Choice and Decision-making
Relationships
System
Performance
Service
Coordination
Utilization, Access
Financial Level of Effort
What are the Core Indicators?
Health,
Welfare, and Rights
Safety
Health,
Medications, Wellness (new)
Respect/Rights
Staff
Stability and Competence
Staff
Stability
Staff Competence (new)
What are the Core Indicators?
Family
Indicators
Information
and Planning
Choice & Control
Access & Support Delivery
Community Connections
Family Involvement
Satisfaction
Family Outcomes
What are the data sources?
Consumer Survey
Family Survey
Provider Survey
Adult Family Survey (at home, 18+)
Family Guardian Survey (out-of-home)
Children Family Survey (at home, <18)
Staff Stability
Board Representation
System Data
Incidents
Mortality
National Core Indicators
Selected Results
Consumer Survey
7917
surveys completed
67% of people interviewed were able to
respond to Section I
Level of MR
65%
mild-moderate
29% severe-profound
6% no label or unknown
Place of Residence
Nursing Facility
0.9
Other
3.7
Apartment Program
4.3
Specialized Facility
Foster Care or Host Home
Independent Home or Apt
8.5
9.9
18.6
Group Home
24.7
Parent or Relative Home
0.0
29.1
20.0
40.0
Areas of Strength
92% of all respondents report that they
have enough privacy
over 90% of respondents report that
support staff treat them with respect
94% satisfied with home
96% satisfied with work/day program
Participation in community activities is
generally high, ranging from 69% to 96%
Areas for Improvement
77% of all respondents report that service
coordinators get them what they need,
compared with 90% in FY2001
48% of respondents reported “sometimes” or
“always” feeling lonely
only 52% of women had a GYN exam in the
past year and 7% have never had one
Adult Family Survey
Surveys of families with an adult family
member living at home
5567 total surveys (37% response rate)
Average age of respondent = 57
89% of respondents were parents
96% were primary caregivers
Adult Family Survey
(% shown = “yes” response)
Nat’l Avg
Family receives information
about services
50.7%
Family helped develop service
plan
State staff respect family’s
choices and opinions
72.9%
State staff are knowledgeable
and effective
73.1%
80.3%
Adult Family Survey:
Choice & Control
(% shown = “yes” response)
Nat’l Avg
Family chooses support workers
39.6%
Family has control over hiring &
management of workers
36.4%
Family wants control over hiring
& management of workers
55.9%
Family knows how much $$ is
spent on behalf of person
31.9%
Staff Turnover Rates
FY1999 - FY2001
60%
52.9%
50%
40%
41.7%
35.2%
30%
20%
31.2%
45.1%
35.8%
residential
day
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
NCI Utilization – Pennsylvania
Independent Monitoring
“Satisfaction & Quality
of Life are Fundamental
to an Effective Quality
Management System”
NCI Utilization – Pennsylvania
Independent Monitoring
Office of Mental Retardation Planning Advisory
Committee Multi-Year Plan
Independent Monitoring for Quality (IM4Q)
Recommended for System Change
Everyday Lives and Principles for the MR System
emphasize Outcomes for people and
individual/family satisfaction
Benefits of Independent Monitoring & NCI
Surveys done by consumers, families & citizens
NCI Utilization – Pennsylvania
Framework for QM
Integrating and Linking NCI Information
By Quality Domains (Access, Person-Centered
Service Planning & Delivery, Safeguards, …)
By Business Process (Registration, Service
Planning, Support Coordination, Monitoring of
Service Provision, Incident Management,
Complaint Management, Provider Qualification &
Review, …)
For System Performance (Program Performance
and Impact of Changes, Quality Management
Planning, Quality Improvement Activities,…)
NCI Utilization – Pennsylvania
2002 Annual Report
Overview
2002 Report displayed findings from 2000-2001
(first year all 46 County Programs Participated in
IM4Q)
NCI Consumer Survey – 1,335 respondents
NCI Family Survey – 1,056 respondents
NCI Family/Guardian Survey – 938 respondents
Results highlighted in the 2002 Annual Report
utilized to improve quality in services & supports
NCI Utilization – Pennsylvania
Continuous Quality Improvement
Moving away from Quality Assurance …
QI Action Plan developed from 2002 Report
Methodology – Plan, Do, Check, Act
CQI Steps
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Identify Opportunities for Improvement
Perform a Barrier Analysis
Develop Interventions
Implement Interventions
Track Improvement
Return to Step 1 as needed
For More Information
Final NCI Reports for Phase IV (FY2002)
are available on HSRI’s website:
www.hsri.org
Contact us with questions:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]