240 likes | 395 Views
Strategies. Statewide State Legislative request for funding (for some areas of State) Revised IFSP Intensive Statewide Technical Assistance Development of Local Improvement Strategies (See handout) Development of Local QA Process QA Coordinator quarterly meetings. TABs. CHILD OUTCOMES.
E N D
Strategies • Statewide • State Legislative request for funding (for some areas of State) • Revised IFSP • Intensive Statewide Technical Assistance • Development of Local Improvement Strategies (See handout) • Development of Local QA Process • QA Coordinator quarterly meetings
NC Statewide Data: Review for Outliers *Upon review of all outliers in each outcome area it was noticed that both CDSA “F” and CDSA “G” had consistent outliers in ALL three outcome areas.
CDSA “F” Drill Down • Looked at CDSA “F” county by county • Eligibility Categories • a-e categories by outcome area • Actual entry and exit ratings for children
CDSA “F” Data Themes Eligibility Category • Reviewed children by eligibility category • Found low number for established conditions • Unable to conclude that high “b” percentages are in fact due to the type of children served
CDSA “F” Data Themes a-e categories by outcome area • Reviewed the 8 counties in this catchment area • Found one county that was significantly higher than the catchment area’s average in all three outcome areas. • Exclusion of this county from the CDSA’s totals increase both SSI and SSII by 4-5%
CDSA “F” Data Themes Actual entry and exit ratings • At entry more children received ratings of 4 and 5 than all other ratings combined. • At exit, although making progress these children received a rating at or below the number received at entry.
CDSA “F” Next Steps • Discussions with management team • Look at how CDSA is coding Developmental Delay vs. Established Condition • Take a look at actual completed COSFs • Drill down further at the county level
CDSA “G” Drill Down • Looked at CDSA “G” county by county • Eligibility Categories • a-e categories by outcome area • Actual ratings for children at entry
CDSA “G” Data Themes Eligibility category • Reviewed children by eligibility category and concluded • 80.14% of children are served under the DD category and 19.86% served under EC • Therefore, one would not expect all children to have a delay in ALL three outcome areas
CDSA “G” Data Themes a-e categories by outcome areas • Ratings and outcome areas looked consistent across the 10 counties.
CDSA “G” Data Themes Actual ratings at entry At time of entry NO child received a rating of 6 or 7 in ANY of the outcome areas. 18
CDSA “G” Next Steps • Discussion with management team about usage of COSF • Look at some actual completed ratings • Analyze further the types of children served and begin to ask more questions such as • Higher % of children eligible for Part B when compared to the state? • Children made eligible by speech only? Clinical opinion?
NC next steps • Complete this type of quality check for each of the 18 CDSAs • Looking for both high and low outliers • Provide TA tailored to identified themes. • CDSA specific • Regional • Statewide
Questions??? For additional information, refer to our websitewww.ncei.org