Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Developing Quality Management Activities from the Ground Up Elizabeth Graves Love, MPH Houston EMA.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Developing Quality Management Activities from the Ground Up Elizabeth Graves Love, MPH Houston EMA."— Presentation transcript:

1 Developing Quality Management Activities from the Ground Up Elizabeth Graves Love, MPH Houston EMA

2 Outline Houston EMA at a Glance The CPCDMS Outcomes Evaluation Clinical Chart Review Client Satisfaction Measurement Resources Conclusions and Questions

3 I. The Houston EMA at a Glance

4

5 The Houston EMA Six county area in southeast Texas, covering 5,921 square miles General population of 4,290,277 Estimated number of diagnosed PLWH/A is 20,045

6 Houston EMA

7 The Houston EMA FY 2003 Title I allocation is $20,526,823 HIV Services administers 67 service contracts with 27 local providers Over 7,000 PLWH/A access Title I services each year

8 II. The Centralized Patient Care Data Management System

9 The CPCDMS The CPCDMS is a real-time, de-identified, client-level database application The system was implemented in June 2000 To date over 10,500 clients have been registered in the CPCDMS

10 The CPCDMS Records are created, accessed and updated by providers via DSL data linking using a unique 11-character client code No client-identifying information is collected Client records are stored at HIV Services on a database server in SQL format

11 The CPCDMS Data collection occurs through one of three processes Client registration Service encounter information Medical updates Through these processes the data that is essential to QM activities is collected

12 The CPCDMS Users schedule reports using Crystal Reports software Providers use reports to generate backup billing documentation and manage programs HIV Services uses reports to obtain unduplicated data across all providers, service categories and/or grant codes

13 The CPCDMS 31 local Ryan White-funded providers are online and using the CPCDMS This includes all providers funded by Titles I, II, III and IV in a 10-county area

14 III. Outcomes Evaluation

15 Background HRSA began emphasizing the importance of evaluating CARE Act programs in the late 1990’s The Houston EMA began discussing options in FY 1999

16 Roles and Responsibilities The RWPC requested that HIV Services develop and implement a comprehensive, ongoing evaluation program The RWPC determined that its role would be one of general process oversight

17 Getting Ready In early FY 2000 HIV Services hired an FTE Project Coordinator to manage this and other quality-related initiatives Job description required a graduate degree and documented evaluation experience

18 Getting Ready In summer 2000 HIV Services completed necessary background work Reviewing HRSA materials and existing evaluation models Setting project goals and timeline Surveying the level of awareness among providers and RWPC members Conducting a resource inventory

19 Getting Ready Project Goals included: Developing appropriate outcomes and indicators for each funded service Involving all stakeholders Minimizing the pain of data collection for providers and clients Providing accessible, useful data to the RWPC and providers on a regular basis

20 Getting Ready In fall 2000, HIV Services conducted an orientation meeting for providers, RWPC members and consumers HIV Services then facilitated work groups to select outcomes and indicators for 27 Title I service categories

21 Selecting the Outcomes Each group worked through the United Way’s logic model, which provides steps for choosing appropriate outcomes For each selected outcome the group chose appropriate indicators and data collection methods

22 Selecting the Outcomes Example – Primary Medical Care Outcome – Slowing/prevention of disease progression Indicator – 75% of clients will improve or maintain CD4 counts and viral loads over time Data Collection Method – CPCDMS

23 Selecting the Outcomes Example – Rehabilitation Outcome – Improved ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) Indicator – Change over time in the percent of clients who report an improvement in the ability to perform ADL after completing rehabilitation therapy Data Collection Method – Client survey

24 Selecting the Outcomes Example – Outreach Outcome – Entrance into the system of care Indicator – By the end of the fiscal year, 50% of clients will enter Ryan White primary care Data Collection Method - CPCDMS

25 Selecting the Outcomes Once the work groups reached consensus, the RWPC reviewed and approved the outcome measures The outcome measures are reviewed and revised each fiscal year

26 Background Work During the RWPC approval process, HIV Services prepared the following: Data collection tools and analysis reports Policies and contract language describing requirements for providers Training for providers

27 Data Collection Through registrations, service encounters and medical updates, the CPCDMS collects the following data used in outcomes analysis: Demographics CD4 counts, viral loads and stage of illness Opportunistic infections and co-morbidities Health and support service utilization

28 Data Collection Through special screens created for certain service categories, the CPCDMS collects the following data used in outcomes analysis: Provider assessment of client progress Health data not collected in primary care Number of hospitalizations and ER visits

29 Data Collection In general, the CPCDMS cannot provide information about Quality of life Cost-effectiveness Knowledge, attitudes and practices Client surveys collect this information

30 Data Collection Client Surveys HIV Services developed and piloted the pre- and post-test surveys Virtually all surveys are less than one page in length; most are four questions or less No demographic information is collected

31 Data Collection Survey Administration In FY 01 survey administration and data entry was manual Since FY 02 survey administration and data entry has been automated through the CPCDMS

32

33

34 Provider Requirements Providers are contractually obligated to participate in evaluation activities Reimbursements may be withheld if a provider is not in compliance

35 Implementation Prior to the beginning of FY 2001, providers received instructions and training on evaluation activities Data collection began March 1, 2001

36 Data Analysis and Reporting Providers must submit outcomes data to HIV Services each quarter Data is stored in SQL format and analyzed using Crystal Reports Each provider and the RWPC receives results on a quarterly basis

37 Using Outcomes Data Providers use outcomes data to report to their boards, complete RFPs and for internal quality improvement The RWPC uses outcomes data in all planning processes

38 Using Outcomes Data - Example Primary Care Outcome 1.1 – Slowing or prevention of disease progression Indicator - 75% of clients will decrease or maintain their viral load over time In FY02 79% of Title I primary care clients decreased or maintained their viral load The RWPC increased the allocation for primary care by 10% for FY04

39 Using Outcomes Data - Example Household Items Outcome 3.1 – Improved or stabilized living conditions Indicator - Change in the percent of clients with improved or stabilized living conditions due to receiving furniture or household items FY01 and 02 data showed that this program had no impact on client living conditions The RWPC did not fund this service for FY04

40 Successes From conception to implementation, project development took just six months The project has support and participation from all key stakeholders The resulting data has enhanced RWPC decision- making as well as our Title I grant application

41 Challenges At first providers were wary about the possibility of extra work RWPC members require ongoing education about understanding and using outcomes

42 IV. Clinical Chart Review

43 Background In April 2001 HRSA issued its guidance on quality management One goal is to ensure that medical services are consistent with treatment guidelines The EMA determined that clinical chart review could best accomplish this goal

44 Roles and Responsibilities Following HRSA guidance, HIV Services assumed project oversight The RWPC QA Committee maintains an advisory role

45 Getting Ready In FY 2001 HIV Services hired an FTE Program Development Coordinator to oversee clinical chart review Job description required a graduate degree along with documented experience in QA/utilization review

46 Getting Ready During winter 2001 HIV Services completed all necessary background work Reviewing PHS Guidelines and HRSA’s Primary Care Assessment Tool Reviewing tools and methodologies from other EMAs Determining provider expectations

47 Scope of Work With this information HIV Service determined the scope of the project Each health-related service would undergo an annual review of client records A qualified contractor would perform the chart reviews HIV Services would analyze and report findings

48 Scope of Work Participating service categories include: Primary Care Case Management Oral Health Care Vision Care Professional Counseling Substance Abuse Treatment Rehabilitation Hospice Care Home Health Care Drug Reimbursement

49 Contractor HIV Services contracted with a masters- level RN to help develop the tools and to conduct the reviews Reimbursement is on a per-chart basis

50 Tool Development For each service category a set of core questions was developed Example – What percentage of primary care clients receive the recommended number of CD4, viral load and CBC tests each year? These questions drove tool development

51 Tool Development Primary care tool borrows heavily from HRSA’s Primary Care Assessment Tool 30 data elements Case management tool follows EMA standards of care for case management 15 data elements

52 Implementation Providers received instructions and training on chart review activities Provider obligations Sample generation Review schedule Reporting

53 Provider Requirements Providers are contractually obligated to participate in chart review activities Providers must accommodate the review Provide a work space for the contractor Have charts pulled and ready for review

54 Sample Generation Desired sample characteristics 10% of the caseload for each service Reflective of the population served Randomly selected

55 Sample Generation To generate the sample, a CPCDMS report randomly selects 10% of the clients seen during the time under review, mirroring the demographic make-up of all clients HIV Services provides the sample to the provider immediately prior to the review so charts may be pulled

56 Implementation During FY02 charts for four Primary Care sites and eight Case Management sites were reviewed 400 primary care charts 235 case management charts Oral health and vision care have been added in FY03

57 Analysis and Reporting The contractor provides raw data to HIV Services in MS Access format for analysis HIV Services forwards preliminary results to each provider for their comment Final results are disseminated to providers and the RWPC

58 Using the Data - Example Providers are using chart review data for internal quality improvement Example – One clinic’s results showed that very few TB+ clients received confirmatory chest x-rays, which were performed off-site The clinic purchased the necessary equipment to perform chest x-rays on-site

59 Using the Data - Example The RWPC is using chart review data during their decision-making processes Primary Care chart review data showed that just 29% of clients on ART received adequate medication adherence education The RWPC strengthened the Primary Care service definition for FY 2004, mandating med ed and specifying who may provide it

60 Using the Data - Example HIV Services is using chart review data to strengthen contract language and documentation requirements Case Management chart review showed the quality of client assessment tools varied among providers HIV Services has developed a standardized assessment tool, required in FY 2004

61 Successes Most providers consider chart review to be a free service, saving money and staff time The RWPC quickly embraced the value of chart review data After just one year, the data has resulted in significant changes in service delivery

62 Challenges Tool development for services other than Primary Care has been challenging Some providers were concerned that results might be used in a punitive manner

63 V. Client Satisfaction

64 Background Prior to FY 2002 HIV Services required that all providers measure satisfaction Methodologies and tools varied HRSA’s QM guidance in April 2001 led to a reconsideration of client satisfaction

65 Background HIV Services decided to centralize the measurement of client satisfaction to ensure consistent and reliable data As with clinical chart review HIV Services assumed project oversight The RWPC QA and Affected Community Committees provide input and feedback

66 Background During FY 2001 HIV Services conducted all necessary background work Collecting and reviewing providers’ current methodologies and tools Reviewing methodologies from other EMAs Developing methodology and timeline Developing survey instruments

67 Scope of Project Methodology employs a survey with questions that address the service, the provider and the Title I system overall On an annual basis a 10% convenience sampling is surveyed for each service

68 Survey Development HIV Services developed a core set of questions as well as questions relevant to each service category Each service category has a unique survey The surveys were piloted at agency sites

69 Survey Development Providers and RWPC members assisted with survey development Many survey questions were borrowed from providers’ previous survey tools RWPC Affected Community Committee members provided consumer insight

70 Survey Administration Each provider must survey 10% of their clients during a six-week period set by HIV Services The same methodology used to generate outcomes surveys through the CPCDMS is used to generate client satisfaction surveys

71 Survey Administration HIV Services provides each agency with a locked box in which clients deposit completed surveys This ensures that providers never see completed surveys, thus encouraging clients to provide honest answers

72 Provider Requirements Providers are contractually obligated to participate in client satisfaction activities Providers with successful methods for measuring satisfaction already in place may be exempt from participation

73 Implementation In FY ,061 surveys were completed The sample mirrored demographic characteristics of the entire Title I client population In FY ,750 surveys were completed

74 Data Analysis and Reporting Survey forms are scanned at HIV Services and the data is stored in a SQL database that is linked to other CPCDMS data Crystal Reports is used to generate analysis reports Each provider and the RWPC receives results each year

75 Using the Data - Example The RWPC uses the results when setting service definitions Drug Reimbursement clients indicated they were not receiving adequate information from pharmacy staff about side effects, drug interactions, diet and dosage RWPC strengthened the service definition to mandate specific education requirements

76 Successes The standardized methodology provides the EMA with data from the provider, service category and Title I perspectives Centralizing satisfaction measurement benefits providers and the RWPC

77 Challenges Initially providers were concerned that clients would feel “over-surveyed” The RWPC Affected Community Committee helped alleviate these concerns, and in fact most clients have welcomed the opportunity to provide feedback

78 VI. Resources

79 Staff Resources HIV Services has 2.5 FTE assigned to evaluation and QM activities A masters-level RN contractor provides chart review services An IT consultant helps build CPCDMS survey modules and analysis reports

80 Financial Resources Overall FY 2004 QM budget is $434,760, 2% of total allocation Salary for two FTE $150,000 for chart review contractor $100,000 for CPCDMS consultant

81 VII. Conclusions

82 Conclusions Centralizing QM activities at the Grantee level results in standardized methodologies, project continuity and consistent data Buy-in from stakeholders is essential Automating processes whenever possible eases the burden on all stakeholders Regular data reporting keeps stakeholders interested and involved Borrowing methods and tools is a lifesaver

83 For more information… Elizabeth Graves Love, MPH Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services Department HIV Services Section


Download ppt "Developing Quality Management Activities from the Ground Up Elizabeth Graves Love, MPH Houston EMA."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google