110 likes | 123 Views
Learn about the transformation of Tennessee's data collection system from an old quantitative database to a web-based real-time platform focused on Indicator #1: Timely Delivery of Services. Discover how TEIDS streamlines data entry, reporting, and validation for comprehensive reporting needs.
E N D
Data System Evolution Jamie Thomas Kilpatrick, Director Early Childhood Programs Division of Special Education
istory • Old Quantitative Database (QD) was developed to collect early intervention data circa 1990 • QD was a File Maker Pro System that was not consistent across all POE’s • No consistent data manual • No clear approach to system training
istory • Local decision on data entry & interpretation • Difficulty in making statewide compilations • QD served primarily as data dump • Previous Annual Reports were primarily case example- human interest stories
ennessee’s Early InterventionData System • Web-Based Real time Database • Early intervention staff and vendors have password protected user accounts, & log-in access to the data base & to their own data entry • System designed so service coordinator’s can enter their own data • Canned Reports designed at State, POE and Vendor level-related to Indicator #1 Timely Delivery of Services
eporting • TEIDS has canned reports that can be run at the employee level, service coordinator level, child level, agency level, therapist level • Each POE utilizes features to run their own ad hoc reports for local decision making, e.g. caseload distribution, therapy assignments, referrals • TEIDS directly produces validated data reports for local, state and federal reporting, e.g. 618 reports, SPP and APRdata
Indicator 1 • Indicator 1-Timely Delivery of Services • First time (Part B or C) that OSEP has ever asked for delivered services data • Previous reporting related to services was specifically planned service detail from the IFSP • An off-the-shelf IFSP “writing” tool will not answer this indicator. Must have delivered service detail
Indicator 1 • Previous to TEIDS-only way to gather this data was “traditional” monitoring • Traditional monitoring meant-the car-the hotel-bad restaurants-the files-the sample size… • TEIDS ties all services to a specific IFSP • Service Providers report all delivered services data-regardless of payor source
Indicator 1 • Service Providers report all delivered services data-regardless of payor source • Validations programmed into the system to insure that the frequency, intensity, duration, setting, and services must be consistent with the IFSP
Lessons Learned • Do your Intra-Agency work FIRST! • Do your Inter-Agency work related to the delivered service data • Develop Policies & Procedures-First-Then develop your data system to enforce your policies (do not have your data system make the policies)
Lessons Learned • Data Collection Systems no longer are warehouses for IFSP’s. You need an interactive system that includes demographic elements, fiscal components, delivered services data, canned reports and ad-hoc features that are customized to accommodate your state!