4,800 Interviews with the Personal Outcome Measures What We've
Shared by: xyd32971
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 firstname.lastname@example.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?