Get documents about "4,800 Interviews with the Personal Outcome Measures What We've
Document Sample
NASDDDS
Reinventing Quality 2002 Conference
Chicago, IL, July 29-31
4,800 Interviews with the
Personal Outcome Measures:
What We’ve Learned about People and Quality
Services
James F. Gardner, Ph.D.
President/CEO
The Council on Quality and Leadership
100 West Road, Suite 406
Towson, MD 21204
www.thecouncil.org
tel: 410.583.0060
fax: 410.583.0063
jfgardner@thecouncil.org
The Council on Quality and Leadership in
Supports for People with Disabilities
• Originated in 1969 as an accreditation organization in the
field of developmental disabilities
• 2001 mission of The Council is to “increase the
accountability of individuals, organizations, and systems to
people with disabilities.”
• Presence in 43 states, Canada, Ireland, UK, and Australia
& New Zealand
• Focused on people with disabilities
Person-Centered Quality
• Not measuring quality against normative expectations of
professionals, administrators, or people with disabilities
• Not measuring quality as conformity or compliance with a
program processes or requirements
• Measure quality as responsiveness to the individual
receiving supports and services
• Determine whether the supports and services (financial
resources) facilitate the person's outcomes?
The Council on Quality
& Leadership
• Generic quality of life outcomes apply to culturally
diverse settings, services and people
• Integrated information solutions
• Person-centered, quality of life outcomes provide:
o a foundation for person-centered planning
o a framework for organization performance
o a guide to self-assessment
o a guide to third party, independent review
o a guide for advocacy training
o a foundation for networks and systems design and evaluation
Personal Outcome Measures (2000)
IDENTITY
People choose personal goals.
People choose where and with whom they live.
People choose where they work.
People have intimate relationships.
People are satisfied with services.
People are satisfied with their personal life.
AUTONOMY
People choose their daily routine.
People have time, space and opportunity for privacy.
People decide when to share personal information.
People use their environments.
AFFILIATION
People live in integrated environments.
People participate in the life of the community.
People interact with other members of the community.
People perform different social roles.
People have friends.
People are respected.
ATTAINMENT
People choose services.
People realize personal goals. Personal
SAFEGUARDS outcomes
People remain connected to natural supports.
People are safe.
RIGHTS
People exercise rights.
People are treated fairly.
HEALTH
People have the best possible health.
People are free from abuse and neglect.
People experience continuity and security.
Personal Outcome Measures
2000 Edition
Personal Outcome Measures for
Families with Young Children
Assessment Workbook
for use with
Personal Outcome
Measures
Life Support: Connecting Choices
Importance Satisfaction Map™
Percent Personal Outcomes and Supports Present
OUTCOMES SUPPORTS
People Choose Personal Goals 42.4 43.1
People Choose Where and With Whom to Live 43.3 55.2
People Choose Where they Work 36.6 48.2
People have Intimate Relationships 70.9 65.1
People are Satisfied with Services 86.7 78.2
People are Satisfied with their Personal Life 84.4 83.3
People Choose their Daily Routines 83.4 83.0
People have Time, Space and Opportunity for Privacy 89.9 91.4
People Decide When to Share Personal Information 81.4 68.7
People use Their Environments 76.4 79.0
People Live in Integrated Environments 34.1 40.6
People Participate in the Life of the Community 77.5 81.7
People Interact with Other Members of the Community 69.2 70.6
People Perform Different Social Roles 30.8 29.5
People have Friends 58.6 57.4
People are Respected 75.0 77.7
People Choose Services 41.9 43.5
People Realize Personal Goals 82.1 81.2
People Remain Connected to Natural Support Networks 66.2 78.1
People are Safe 87.1 81.0
People Exercise Rights 37.5 34.0
People are Treated Fairly 45.1 44.2
People have the Best Possible Health 72.2 71.2
People are Free from Abuse and Neglect 86.4 89.6
People Experience Continuity and Security 82.6 79.5
National Statistic 2002 N = 4281
Illinois Compared to National Statistics
Illinois Outcomes Difference
National
People choose personal goals. 57.7 42.4 15.4
People choose where and with whom they live. 46.4 43.3 3.1
People choose where they work. 37.6 36.6 1.0
People have intimate relationships. 77.8 70.9 6.9
People are satisfied with services. 90.2 86.7 3.6
People are satisfied with their personal life. 85.6 84.4 1.2
People choose their daily routine. 88.7 83.4 5.3
People have time, space and opportunity for privacy. 89.7 89.9 -0.2
People decide when to share personal information. 79.4 81.4 -2.0
People use their environments. 83.0 76.4 6.6
People live in integrated environments. 39.7 34.1 5.6
People participate in the life of the community. 74.7 77.5 -2.7
People interact with other members of the community. 76.8 69.2 7.6
People perform different social roles. 37.6 30.8 6.9
People have friends. 65.5 58.6 6.8
People are respected. 82.0 75.0 6.9
People choose services. 48.5 41.9 6.6
People realize personal goals. 84.0 82.1 1.9
People remain connected to natural supports. 64.4 66.2 -1.8
People are safe. 89.2 87.1 2.1
People exercise rights. 60.3 37.5 22.8
People are treated fairly. 66.5 45.1 21.4
People have the best possible health. 73.2 72.2 1.0
People are free from abuse and neglect. 90.7 86.4 4.4
People experience continuity and security. 84.5 82.6 1.9
Illinois 1999-2001 N=194
National Statistic 2002 N=4,281
Affiliation Scores by Funding
(n = people with severe disabilities)
3
• There was a significant
difference in the mean factor 2.5
score of Affiliation by source
of funding 2
• F (3,843)=8.565, p<.001 ICF/MR
1.5
HCBW
• Investigation of post-hoc 1 State
Bonferroni tests indicated 0.5
that ICFs/MR funding scored
significantly lower in the 0
mean number of Affiliation Affiliation
outcomes than HCBW and
state
Health Outcomes by Source of Funding
(n = people with severe disabilities)
• There was a significant
difference in the mean 2.6
factor score of Health by
2.5
source of funding
• F (3,843)=7.862, p< .01 2.4
ICF/MR
2.3
• Investigation of post-hoc HCBW
Bonferroni tests 2.2 State
indicated that ICFs/MR
2.1
funding scored
significantly higher in 2
Health
the mean number of
Health outcomes than
HCBW
Personal Outcome Measures Format
• Values
• Information collection
• Guided decision-making
• Presence of outcomes
• Contribution of organizational processes,
resources and systems
Personal Outcome Measures Interview
• Structured interviews with service recipients
—Validity
—Reliability
• Distinguishes between choice and satisfaction
• Personal Outcomes can be measured
• Information has significance for individuals
served, families and providers
Person-Centered Quality
• Identify and define the meaning of the outcomes
for each individual
• How does the person define safety?
• What are the primary safety concerns?
• Physical safety in the neighborhood?
• Safe from psychological abuse and exploitation?
• Safe environment at home and at work?
• Engaging in risky behaviors?
Related docs
