evaluating imagine!’s smarthome

Dannette M. Muselman, M.A. Candidate

Elizabeth Jo Woodruff, M.A.

Yvonne Kellar-Guenther, Ph.D. – Research Mentor

Colorado WIN Partners/University of Colorado

EVALUATING IMAGINE!’S SMARTHOME

Bob & Judy Charles SmartHome

What is a SmartHome?Technologies in the SmartHome

Research Question

Does living in the Bob and Judy Charles Smarthome enhance the quality of life for the residents?

Quality of Life Indicators Studied Increased service to customers Increased active participation with

community Increased communication Increased independence Improved health Satisfaction with services provided through

the SmartHome

DATA COLLECTION

5-Day Phone Call Overview

Decision to do 5 day calls with residents

Data directly from the Residents Daily phone calls with residents for 5

consecutive days Prior to moving into the home (July 2009) and 1

year later (August 2010) Calls included items from National Core

Indicators and open ended questions

5-Day Phone Call Overview

National Core Indicators (NCI): Consumer Outcomes. Phase IV Final Report. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Data. National Core Indicators, Human Services Research Institute (HSRI)

Intends to provide state developmental disabilities authorities in measuring service delivery and system performance

22 states actively participating in NCI

5-Day Phone Call Data: NCI Subscales

Community Inclusion- participation in everyday activities in community

Safety – feel safe in home and neighborhood Choices and Decision Making-making choices

about everyday life (where to work, who to live with) Health- receive routine physical and dental care Respect and Rights- basic rights and treated with

respect by others Relationships- friendships and caring relationships

other than staff Satisfaction- satisfied with where live & work or day

program Access- received support to do something and/or

travel in community Service Coordination- know service coordinators

and coordinators ask about needs

Supports Intensity Scale Overview

Data directly from the Residents Supports Intensity Scale (SIS)

Scale identifies the type, frequency and duration of supports needed

Looked at scores computed prior to living (2006-2008) in the home and then scores computed after 1 year in the home (August 2010)

Supports Intensity Scale Overview

Evaluate and measure the type, frequency and intensity of supports needed for an individual with a developmental disability in 85 areas covering the following domains: Home Living Community Living Lifelong Learning Employment Health and Safety Social Protection and Advocacy Medical Behavioral

Overview

Feedback from Imagine! (Member checking)

Resident Demographics

8 Residents All have cognitive and developmental

disabilities Gender

5 Female, 3 Male Age

Range – 26-53 years Mean – 41years

5 DAY PHONE CALL DATA RESULTS

National Core Indicators Results

Analyzed quantitative NCI data by looking at each resident’s change in subscale mean scores from Time 1 to Time 2 Low sample size (n≤8) for most statistical

analyses Outliers in range of scores would have

thrown data off Not all residents had composite scores for

each subscale

Choices and Decision Making

There was a large increase in residents’ perception in control of their own lives.

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4Change in mean scores

012345678

Choices & Decision Making 1 (n=6)

Number of Residents

5 Day Call Data and QoL Results Overall, residents perceptions of their

Quality of Life appears to increase Increase: Safety, Choices and Decision

Making, Respect and Rights, Relationships, Access

Stay the same: Community Inclusion Decrease: Health, Service Coordination

5 Day Call Data and QoL Results

5 of the 6 residents reported feeling more in control of their own lives

3 of the 6 felt safer in their new home and neighborhood

3 of the 6 residents felt they were more respected by those around them

3 of the 6 residents reported having more personal relationships and/or having more contact with friends, family, and romantic partners.

5 Day Call Data and QoL Results

4 out of 5 residents reported that they had better access to resources (e.g. transportation, people to help them) than they did before. The fifth reported that there had been no change.

Little change in how involved residents felt they were in the community since moving into the home a year ago.

5 Day Call Data and QoL Results There was a decrease in getting what they

need from service coordinator and knowing service coordinator. This was not expected.

Imagine! reported that the residents may be turning to staff within the house vs. other service providers This finding fit with what Imagine!

expected, will hopefully help decrease costs of caring for these residents

Two Open-ended Questions

What was the most interesting thing that happened to you today? Why did you like that?

Do you use computers? If yes, tell me what you like to do on the computer. If no, why don’t you use a computer?

Qualitative Data Results

In Time 1, residents reported going to work or a day program as the most interesting thing they did (n=4). By Time 2 this was expanded to include discussing the business the group was starting together.

While the number of residents who reported having access to a computer (n=4 T1 & 6 T2) and using such technology for personal interests increased in Time 2 (n=5 T1 & 6 T2), it is interesting to note that 2 residents did not report having access to a computer or using technology for personal interests in Time 2.

SUPPORTS INTENSITY SCALE - SIS

Changes in SIS Overall Support Needs

SIS Support Needs Index

MK RC GS JR RM CI DF LK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1Round 2

Support Needs Percentile

Changes in SIS Ratings

Patterns in SIS changes

Part A: Home Living Activities Q3 – Preparing food

Patterns in SIS changes

Part C: Lifelong Learning Activities Q4 – Using technology for learning

Patterns in SIS changes

Part E: Health and Safety Activities Q4 – Ambulating and moving about

SIS – Quality of Life Results

Overall, support needs have decreased from Time 1 to Time 2 for 7 of the 8 residents

Possible links to specific technologies found in the SmartHome

CORRELATION OF NCI & SIS DATA

Data Correlation

Imagine! asked to see the correlation between SIS and NCI

Allows us to look at subjective vs. objective Quality of Life reports

New Research Question: Would there be a relationship between

resident self-report and staff report?

Correlation Results

Two strong positive correlations (as one subscale increases/decreases, so does the other): NCI Access & SIS Employment (r=0.85,

p=0.06) NCI Access & SIS Social (r=0.99, p=0.002)

Correlation Results

Several negative correlations (as one subscale increases, the other subscale decreases): NCI Relationships & SIS Lifelong Learning (r=-

0.77,p=0.07) NCI Satisfaction & SIS Lifelong Learning (r=-0.626,

p=0.096) NCI Community Inclusion & SIS Employment (r=-0.75,

p=0.08) NCI Community Inclusion & SIS Social (r=-0.792, p=0.06) NCI Relationships & SIS Social (r=-0.89, p=0.02)

Conclusions

Use of subjective and objective data Complete approach/multiple

viewpoints in understanding research question

Would use both subjective and objective data in future research as both offer valuable insight that one alone cannot

LESSONS LEARNED

Did Quality of Life Increase?

Yes! Quality of Life in residents did increase Predictors of QoL: Have more relationships,

greater independence & interaction with environment Overall, most NCI subscales increased & SIS

subscales decreased Fits with what we expected to find

Those who have greater access and choices will have less need for support and increased independence

Did Quality of Life Increase?

Some Quality of Life increases may be due to public nature of house, not technology

Doing more complex tasks so SIS may not be best indicator

Changes to Research Design In future, same person collect data

directly from residents face-to-face Continue to collect data from both

residents and staff, family, & friends Data from residents: Unique method

and engages residents in the research process

Future Areas of Research

Technology absorption, failure, satisfaction

Staff satisfaction levels, tracking features

Continue collection of this data a year from now and then talking with staff or Imagine! again to understand changes in values

Family satisfaction levels

Contact Information

Colorado WIN Partners:Dannette Muselman

dannette.muselman@ucdenver.edu 303.946.9650Elizabeth Woodruff

elizabeth.woodruff@ucdenver.edu 303.315.1276Yvonne Kellar-Guenther

yvonne.kellar-guenther@ucdenver.edu 303.829.0819Judith Emery

judy.emery@ucdenver.edu 303.315.1272Imagine!/SmartHome:

Gregory N. Wellemsgwellems@imaginecolorado.org 303.926.6466

Kevin Hardingkharding@imaginecolorado.org 303.926.6441

Alex Andrewsaandrews@imaginecolorado.org 720.544.6908

Sterling RW Windswind@imaginecolorado.org 303.457.5668