View
216
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
SYNOPSIS OF HCP DATAA broad-based look at The Health Care Program for Children with Special Needs
Compiled by: Arthur McFarlane II, Epidemiology, Planning, and Evaluation Branch
Presented to HPAC on May 22, 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Carsten Baumann Angela Goodger Indira Gujral Dale Knochenmus Abby Laib Kristin McDermott Kelsey Mefford Jennie Munthali Ann Whitehouse Participants in the focus groups and key
informant interviews and respondents to the Family Survey and Specialty Clinic Survey
HCP Care Coordinators
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The presentation will summarize the data gathered by five projects that the HCP Program and the Epidemiology, Planning and Evaluation Branch collaborated on between July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2013
The five projects are: The Annual CYSHCN Data Report The Annual Care Coordination Family Survey The Specialty Clinic Family Satisfaction Survey Care Coordination Focus Groups with current HCP
Partners Key Informant Interviews with counties not
implementing HCP care coordination
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS
The Annual CYSHCN Data Report
Data-driven view of the care coordination process to inform decision-making at the state and local levels
Designed to examine the first year of data since the new HCP Care Coordination model was implemented
Client-level data are aggregated to describe service delivered by care coordinators
Report reflects data from Nov. 1, 2011-Sept. 30, 2012
964 clients who received HCP Care Coordination with an action plan were included in this analysis
6,647 individuals were entered into the data system during the timeframe
THE ANNUAL CARE COORDINATION FAMILY SURVEY
Designed to assess family satisfaction with care coordination services
Survey was predominately a mail-delivered paper instrument administered January-February 2013
925 families who met care coordination criteria and had complete address information were eligible to be surveyed
828 surveys were delivered 97 surveys were undeliverable 178 surveys were completed The response rate was 21.5%
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
Designed to help understand the experience of families who receive specialty clinic services
Surveys are administered at clinics immediately following a visit and collected using a locked drop box at each location
Data were analyzed and reported for the first quarter of 2013
Data were collected at all nine specialty clinic sites
Of the 170 responses, 131 (77.1%) were returned at neurology clinics, 31(18.2%) at rehabilitation clinics and 8 (4.7%) at orthopaedic clinics
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS
LPHA representatives from small, medium, and large counties were asked to share their thoughts on how the HCP care coordination model is working and to provide recommendations for program improvements
Five focus groups were held over a two-month period
Each focus group was designed to address different aspects of care coordination
They were 90-120 minutes in length
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH COUNTIES NOT IMPLEMENTING HCP CARE COORDINATION
Designed to better understand why 23 of 56 counties opted to stop offering HCP model of care coordination services
Phone interviews were conducted with representatives from 19 of 23 counties
Participants were asked up to eight questions during a 30 minute interview
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
PROJECT 1 : THE ANNUAL CYSHCN DATA REPORT
THE ANNUAL CYSHCN DATA REPORT
Clients are 60% -Male/40%-Female Median age of client is 4 years of age 73% spoke English/21% spoke Spanish 39% are Hispanic 12% needed an interpreter 30% are in single parent households Intake interviews were conducted in the
home 38% of the time; over the phone 34% of the time; in the office or specialty clinic 22% of the time
86% of the intake interviews were conducted by nurses
THE ANNUAL CYSHCN DATA REPORT
THE ANNUAL CYSHCN DATA REPORT
THE ANNUAL CYSHCN DATA REPORT
THE ANNUAL CYSHCN DATA REPORT
THE ANNUAL CYSHCN DATA REPORT
CYSHCN REPORT CONCLUSIONS
The CYSHCN database allows the program and the care coordinators an opportunity to look at the population being served in a consistent manner across LPHA’s throughout the state
A large percentage of the children in the system (85%) do not meet the “care coordination” criteria
It is much more difficult to measure the impact of information only versus the HCP model of care coordination with an action plan
CYSHCN REPORT CONCLUSIONS CONTINUED
The system has a large percentage of missing data in crucial demographic areas making it more difficult to ascertain if underserved communities are being served
Additional years of data will allow the program to address subgroups with greater certainty
PROJECT 2: THE ANNUAL CARE COORDINATION FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
THE ANNUAL FAMILY SURVEY
FAMILY SURVEY CONCLUSIONS
Responses indicate that most of the families have a doctor and health insurance for their child
Responses indicate that most of the families find doctors and health insurance without help from HCP care coordination
Satisfaction with care coordination appears to be generated by the medical coordination provided
There is room for improvement in the knowledge about, completion of and updating of action plans
Management of care was improved in 63.4% of the cases in the sample
PROJECT 3: SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
THE SPECIALTY CLINIC FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY
SPECIALTY CLINIC CONCLUSIONS
Comments and responses showed that most respondents were pleased to have a clinic in their area so they did not have to drive to Denver
Comments were overwhelmingly positive about the doctors, nurses and staff of the clinics
Although the sample is self-selected there is a good distribution of respondents from different parts of the state and across dates in the quarter, lending validity and reliability to the results
PROJECT 4: CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS
FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#1
Question: What are the best features of the current HCP care coordination model? Provides standards, structures and consistency
to the program and to the state Reports from CYSHCN are accurate and helpful Accommodates and supports a multi-disciplinary
team approach Action plan is good as a foundation Assessment guides the approach we are going to
take with the family Care plan can identify specific goals in a set
timeframe 6-month timeframe keeps us focused
FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#1
Question: What are the challenges of the current HCP care coordination model? The data system is not easy to use for the things
we do – but we make it work Going through the questions to get to the point
where they say they don’t need care coordination is a challenge
We don’t have a way to track the cases where someone is calling for just information
We would like a way to more clearly define our roles to show the unique skills we bring to helping families
Refugee population is small but is high need and takes a lot of effort
FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#1
Question: What other adjustments to the care coordination model does HCP need to incorporate? Need to look at a bigger model or framework Need to look at Affordable Care Act and RCCO’s
to create payment structure that is the same Need to gather data that care coordination is
evidence-based Data should be analyzed over time for change to
show impact of the program and to be used for quality improvement
Collect more data on the medical complexity of the cases
FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#2
Question: How would you improve HCP’s care coordination services for children and youth with special health care needs? The data system seems to be working well but
we need information that tells us if what we’re doing is working
There could be a more direct referral system from schools to HCP
Need to distinguish ourselves – we don’t do home health care
Aren’t as involved with children by the time they reach “transition” and this can cause problems – not sure we have resources to fix it
FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#3 Question: Using the data available in the
CYSHCN database, how would you improve the effectiveness of the care coordination being delivered? The data base doesn’t affect care coordination.
Care Coordinators put information in, but it doesn’t provide anything to the LPHA.
The data system provides structure. It tells us where we are at any given time.
The database can be helpful to get referrals, but not usually in a timely manner
The local version of the assessment form is good for care coordination but not all the data goes in the system
FOCUS GROUP THEMES
Participants state there are clear benefits to the data system
Participants state that there is a need to adjust the tools used to collect the data
Participants are seeking clarified roles both in the program and in the community
Role with focus on clinical medical care coordination appears to be the unique niche
Data can be used to show improvement in cases and areas for quality improvement
FOCUS GROUP THEMES CONTINUED
Information only cases represent a large portion of the work but don’t count as care coordination and take time from those efforts
Participants see a connection between their work and school-based care for consulting, referrals and care coordination and believe the links between the two can be stronger
Complexity of cases and differences between LPHA’s makes standardization and statewide assessment difficult
“There is no way to measure the value of care coordination the way the system is set up now”
PROJECT 5: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH COUNTIES NOT IMPLEMENTING CARE COORDINATION
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER CARE COORDINATION PROVIDERS
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER CARE COORDINATION PROVIDERS
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER CARE COORDINATION PROVIDERS
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH COUNTIES NOT IMPLEMENTING CARE COORDINATION
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH COUNTIES NOT IMPLEMENTING CARE COORDINATION
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH COUNTIES NOT IMPLEMENTING CARE COORDINATION
KEY INFORMANT CONCLUSIONS
The interviews were conducted with individuals selected by the LPHA’s thus interviewees had different job duties in the organizations and varying levels of knowledge about different aspects of the opt-out decision-making process and clients receiving services
Issues of communication on funding and annual planning are themes noted in the interviews
A recurrent theme in the interviews was agency capacity
KEY INFORMANT CONCLUSIONS CONTINUED
Participants expressed capacity concerns around adequate staff to support care coordination and financial resources to implement the full model
All agencies expressed a desire to continue to serve their families’ needs
SOURCES
SOURCES
Analysis of the Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CYSHCN) Data System-November 1,2011 thru September 30, 2012
Health Care Program for Children with Special Needs (HCP) – Family Survey – FY12 Results
HCP Specialty Clinic Survey and Data Tool Health Care Program for Children with Special
Needs (HCP) Care Coordination Services – HCP Focus Group Project
Health Care Program for Children with Special Needs (HCP) Care Coordination Services – Key Informant Interviews
PROJECT 4: ADDITIONAL SLIDES: CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#1
Question #1: What are the best features of the current HCP care coordination model? Provides standards, structures and consistency
to the program and to the state Reports from CYSHCN are accurate and helpful Accommodates and supports a multi-disciplinary
team approach Action plan is good as a foundation Assessment guides the approach we are going to
take with the family Care plan can identify specific goals in a set
timeframe 6-month timeframe keeps us focused
FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#1
Question #2: What are the challenges of the current HCP care coordination model? The data system is not easy to use for the things
we do – but we make it work Going through the questions to get to the point
where they say they don’t need care coordination is a challenge
We don’t have a way to track the cases where someone is calling for just information
We would like a way to more clearly define our roles to show the unique skills we bring to helping families
Refugee population is small but is high need and takes a lot of effort
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#1
Question #3: Why have you made changes to the current HCP care coordination model and how have you made those adjustments? Compressed forms so they aren’t so lengthy Do a lot of educating on what HCP care
coordination is and what our role is Indicate at the 6-month mark how long families
will be on the program so that those who are used to being on the program indefinitely have the right expectations
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#1
Question #4: What other adjustments to the care coordination model does HCP need to incorporate? Need to look at a bigger model or framework Need to look at Affordable Care Act and RCCO’s
to create payment structure that is the same Need to gather data that care coordination is
evidence-based Data should be analyzed over time for change to
show impact of the program and to be used for quality improvement
Collect more data on the medical complexity of the cases
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#1
Question #5: In the process of making the model operational do you feel you've developed some promising and practical practices that the program should consider as they consider changes to the model? Each community has adapted the forms to meet
their needs and the needs of their families Need an orientation process for nurses coming in Need advocacy from the state to say that there
is a variety of care coordination, appropriate for different levels of cases based on complexity
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#2
Question #1: What distinguishes HCP’s care coordination with “information only” services from other care coordination/patient navigation services in your community? We have a reputation for having connections to
key players in the community and that reputation is different from others
As RN’s we look at care in a more medical way We look at individual and medical case
complications AND holistic family complications Mental health resources seem to be a large
missing piece in communities
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#2
Question #2: What distinguishes HCP’s care coordination with “an action plan” services from other care coordination/patient navigation services in your community? The action plan gives parents something to hold
on to beside documentation and the hope is it makes everyone more accountable
Care coordinators empower parents and center the care around the child
Need to bridge care coordination services with school-based systems and could act as consultants to them
Change the name and the concept that is wrapped around HCP and what the program does
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#2
Question #3: How would you improve HCP’s care coordination services for children and youth with special health care needs? The data system seems to be working well but
we need information that tells us if what we’re doing is working
There could be a more direct referral system from schools to HCP
Need to distinguish ourselves – we don’t do home health care
Aren’t as involved with children by the time they reach “transition” and this can cause problems – not sure we have resources to fix it
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#2
Question #4: What is the value of standardizing the care coordination service-delivery model across HCP’s statewide programs? Population we serve is too variable to standardize.
Complexity of needs and the number of needs is often different.
We're all different. Need minimum necessary requirements provided to the locals and what the state requires. After that, leave it up to the county to do what works for them.
Each county has different issues and won't be able to support it all. There are capacity issues. But can standardize in the area of data collection to prove outcomes in order to get $/funding/etc.
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#2
Question #5: How does HCP care coordination fit in with the role of local public health to promote health and prevent disease at the community level? Look at whole person, the whole family, the
whole community. We don't have blinders on and only look at the child.
Public health looks at the whole population of a certain area and fills gaps for the people that live in that county regardless of where they seek their primary health care.
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#3 Question #1: Using the data available in the
CYSHCN database, how would you improve the effectiveness of the care coordination being delivered? The data base doesn’t affect care coordination.
Care Coordinators put information in, but it doesn’t provide anything to the LPHA.
The data system provides structure. It tells us where we are at at any given time.
The database can be helpful to get referrals, but not usually in a timely manner
The local version of the assessment form is good for care coordination but not all the data goes in the system
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#3
Question #2: How would you do acuity outside of what we’re doing? There is no way to measure the value of care
coordination with the way the database is set up now
Seems like 2 phases: Phase 1: we input information into the database for the state. Phase 2: We are doing care coordination.
It is a frustration that we don’t have another database to put information from the assessment form into. We are doing a lot of work for the state, but with the intake interview, assessment and the hard copy of the action plan, it is too many steps and it’s a step backwards.
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#4 Question #’s 1 & 2: How can the assessment
process be made more effective and valuable? Should the intake interview and assessment processes be combined? State assessment form is cumbersome. There are too
many pages. LPHA changed the form because not all of the categories applied to all children and families in every situation.
The action plan is derived from the assessment. Is there a way to combine these? The assessment could pre-populate the action plan form.
Intake Interview and Assessment piece should be merged into one document/one conversation.
We need to be careful not to change too many things. Our LPHA has adapted quite well to the existing forms and procedures.
CARE COORDINATION FOCUS GROUPS WITH CURRENT HCP PARTNERS – FG#5
This focus group was a technical data assessment that was structured differently from the other focus group sessions. The primary goal was to restructure (either move, change or delete) questions on the intake interview. The secondary goal was to assure that data being reported to the LPHA’s is what they need
The results of this focus group were then fed into the Epidemiology, Planning and Evaluation data report using the CYSHN database
Recommended