cpotter - idp2-outcome driven system development
TRANSCRIPT
Opportunities To Better Understand System Of Care Dynamics: Engaging Community Behavioral Health Providers in Using Dynamic
System of Care Data and seeking Collaborative Solutions to Community Health Challenges
Integrating Data into Practice Motivating Value-based Decisions
by Chris Potter, M.Ed.December, 2014
In the Spring of 2006, I had the opportunity to work on developing an agency wide data-supported quality improvement process, that I called “Outcome Driven System Development (ODSD).” This put into play a process of ‘Quality Improvement’ based upon a ‘Scorecard Benchmarking’ process, with monthly feedback on progress toward the established benchmark goals. In June of 2006, I started work on several initiatives with the intent:
1.To provide data trend analysis, monthly reports, and consultation for Behavioral Health Managers and Supervisors on progress toward improving productivity and clinical outcomes.
2.To assist Community Health Teams in determining and implementing service delivery improvement processes, evaluating their impact
3.To provide Supervisors, Managers, and community stakeholders with data supported reports on Clinical Productivity and Quality Outcomes as part
of Quality Improvement and Utilization management process
Outcome Driven System Development (ODSD)
Developed by Chris Potter, M. Ed.
Integrating Performance and Outcome Data into System DevelopmentIntegrating Performance and Outcome Data into System Development ProcessProcess
SystemsIntegration
Staff Productivity
Clinical Effectiven ess
Outcome Outcome Driven System Driven System
DevelopmentDevelopment
Total Services delivere d Client Serv ice Hours/month
Clinicia n Direct Serv ice hours/monthNumber of ne w cases/ month
Number of uni que i ndiv iduals seenCost of Serv ice per Lev el of Care
Efficiencies to reduce cos ts
Quali ty of care*Client S tatus Assess ment:
•Symptom/ Functi oni ng status c hange•Risk fac tors a nd res ponse•Functi oni ng Sta tus: Voca tional/Educati onal/•Coor dina tion of care be twe en prov iders
Outcomes per i nterv enti on & Populati on Group: Ev idence Based Prac tices v s. Outcomes of Sta ndar d Care
Anal ysis of Hi gh Serv ice Utilizers & Treatment v ariance be twee n clini cians:
Customer sa tisfa ctionServ ice Access time: from call to 1st appointmentSatisfac tion wi th care
Ma nage ment Str uctureStaff W orkloa d Mana ge ment:
•Documentation Timeliness•Staff Satisfaction
•Incentives for Performance•Recognition of Innovation
Multi-S yste m interface:
Cross-system service integrationPartner relation ships
*Assessme nt drawn from ‘Na tional Outcome Measures’, DS M IV criteria, ‘Prime -MD S urv ey’, ‘Common Fac tors i n Ps ychotherapy’
2007 ODSD Priorities:
Goal: To Integrate Multiple System Databases into an Outcome Driven Utilization Management Process to improve Treatment Outcomes, Increase
Efficiency in Service Delivery, and to Encourage Staff Initiative
Objectives: To Develop Data Integration System, to build capacity for utilizing disparate Data bases to evaluate progress toward agency benchmark goals by:
•Providing monthly reports on Scorecard goal outcomes•Evaluating Intervention Outcomes per population groups•Assessing practice variances to assist in coaching staff•Monitoring resource utilization patterns•Tracking and Analyzing Higher Utilizers of service•Assisting in Team, and Clinician, outcome improvement planning•Facilitating Service Integration: Primary Care & Behavioral Services,
then Social & Vocational Services
PPootttteerr’’ss OOuuttccoommee DDrriivveenn SSyysstteemm DDeevveellooppmmeenntt SSttaattuuss RReeppoorrtt:: RReevviisseedd:: 1100//44//22000077 Project Intent Goal-Product Plan Status Pty
1. Scorecard Benchmark Goal Feedback Process
To meet State/Fed. QI Requirements
To build staff motivation, and initiative to improve Service Quality & Productivity
Monthly Feedback to Teams on UM & QI (Scorecard) Benchmark Goals
Develop Report format: Provide monthly, and ad-hoc,
feedback to Managers, Supervisors, and Clinicians
Monthly 1
2. Treatment Plan Revision
To meet new Medicaid
regulations To improve Quality of
Care
Upgraded Treatment Plan to meet new Medicaid Rule Encourage ‘Golden Thread of Treatment’
Roll out Updated Tx. Plan: 1. Meet with Teams –
introduce changes 2. Initiate ‘Individualized
Tx. Plan 3. Monitor and Follow-up
Stage 2 1
3. System Change Facilitation
To meet State/Fed. QI Requirements
To reinforce motivation toward trying new initiatives for improving Quality & Productivity
‘System Process Initiative Trial’ Procedures – to target high level change needs, encourage innovation, and monitor impact of initiatives
Implement ‘SPIT’ Process: Work with teams on testing
‘initiatives’ – evaluating impact upon ‘outcomes and
outputs’. integrating initiatives into System
Stage 1 1
4. Integrated Data Base Development
To meet State/Fed. QM Requirements by creating a central, integrated database needed to evaluate System Status and Change over time
Integrated Database to support QI/UM Process
Over-see development of integrated database to
support UM & QI processes Stage 3 1
5. Outcomes Measurement Facilitation
To meet State EBP & Medicaid QI Requirements
To improve Quality of Care
Monthly Outcome Measures Reports, for use in UM & QI Processes
Revise current Tool - encourage use: provide
analysis & reports Monthly 2
6. SPQM Consultation
Facilitate understanding of using data trends to evaluate system status
Facilitation of monthly SPQM consultation meetings: integrate data feedback into system development
Facilitate SPQM sessions with all teams
F/up with teams as needed
Ongoing Monthly
Meetings: all teams to
process, follow up
2
7. EBP Oversight
To meet State EBP Requirements
To improve Quality of Care
To meet new Medicaid regulations
EBP registry, report to state, facilitate Increased use of EBPs when indicated
Develop EBP Oversight process: work with SUPs &
Teams on Compliance. Participate in bi-monthly stakeholders meetings in
Salem
Monthly 2
8. Utilization Management
To meet State/Fed. QM Requirements
To improve process of Service utilization
To improve Quality of Care
Client/Team/Provider Service Utilization Reports: monitor trends: Work with teams on developing plans to manage outliers
Develop Report format: Monitor & Report to SUPs –
Provide ‘client service profiles’ as requested.
Monthly 3
9. Policy & Procedures Review
To meet State/Fed. QI Requirements
To assure that QM related P&Ps can be supported by data collected
Practice Guidelines, Protocols, and Quality Assurance policies:
Review & Develop Necessary Practice
Guidelines & Procedures: Develop Clinician Training
packages
Monthly – doing some development
of MHO P&Ps 3
10. Adult QIC Liaison
To work with partners on shared Quality Benchmarks – using data supported reports in evaluating progress
‘State Quality Benchmark Collaboration’ Process; facilitate process with community partners toward meeting state DHS Quality Benchmarks
Facilitate & Participate in partner QB meetings: Not developed 3
COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH DIVISION BEHAVIORAL SERVICES SCORECARD:
OOOuuutttcccooommmeee DDDrrriiivvveeennn SSSyyysssttteeemmm DDDeeevvveeelllooopppmmmeeennnttt
Operations Perspective (internal business processes) Integrity: We conduct our business in an open and accountable manner.
Teamwork: We work collaboratively to ensure positive, creative solutions
Customer Perspective Superior Service: We deliver proactive, dignified and courteous community health services.
Diversity: We honor diversity and value individual rights.
Goals Data source Benchmarks Goals Data source Benchmarks
I. Providers work together to deliver high quality care
a. BH: Increase in patients completing Treatment
b. BH: Engagement in Outpatient Treatment Within 1 week of Hospital Discharge
c. BH: Increased use of Evidenced Based Practices and Best Practices that demonstrate Effectiveness
Electronic Medical Record (EMR)
EMR
EMR
Ia.1 > 75% clients report stability in *Symptom Management and Functioning ability upon completing treatment
Ib.1 95 % of Discharged Clients receiving Outpatient care within 1 week.
Ic.1 At least 80% of Treatment Services Delivered to patients tied to Evidence Based Interventions or Improved Outcomes
II. Customers demonstrate satisfaction with services
a. Reduced Barriers in Accessing services i) BH: Clients keep
scheduled appointments
ii) BH: Clients can access treatment when needed
b. Customers reported
staff:
Listened, understood concerns
Were able to help
Explained procedures
Recognized cultural values
EMR
Customer Satisfaction
Survey
IIa.1 Clients keep
> 80% of scheduled Individual treatment appointments
IIa.2 > 80% of Clients attend initial Assessment
IIb.1 > 80% of customers report high satisfaction with services received.
* 1)Client self assessment of Symptom & Functional status, 2)Clinician evaluation of GAF/CGAS& Voc/Ed status & Resource Utilization
Customer Satisfaction (In) = Quality, Access, & Equity of Care
Quality = Effectiveness
COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH DIVISION BEHAVIORAL SERVICES SCORECARD:
OOOuuutttcccooommmeee DDDrrriiivvveeennn SSSyyysssttteeemmm DDDeeevvveeelllooopppmmmeeennnttt
Financial Perspective Stewardship: We carefully and responsibly manage resources.
Innovative (Staff) Perspective (learning and growing) Innovation: We strive to find positive solutions and continuously improve our business practices.
Our Workforce: We value our employees. We recognize their skills and creative vision enable us to achieve our mission.
Goals Data Source Benchmarks Goals Data Source Benchmarks
Staff Resources are managed well to provide cost-effective care
o BH: Direct Service standards are met or exceeded
o BH: Caseloads Sizes are managed equitably between clinicians, appropriate to Evidence-based Treatment Standards
EMR
EMR
& Evidence Based
practice Standards
III a.1 60% Direct Service Ratio is maintained
IIIb.1 90% of clinicians maintain equitable caseload size: based upon Evidence Based Standards, or compared to similar clinicians on team.
Workload is managed well
o BH: Clinicians are able to effectively manage workload, as indicated by timely documentation
o BH: Clinicians are satisfied with support in managing workload
EMR
Clinician Workload
Satisfaction Survey,
Staff Satisfaction
Survey.
IVa.1 90% of Clinicians meet Timeliness Standards for completing Documentation
IVb.1 > 90% of Clinicians report in Workload Survey that they feel supported by management in effectively managing their Workload
Productivity = Efficiency
Employee Initiative = Workload Management
Indicator /Benchmark GoalsTeam FTE
Jan
DCs
Jan
Ave.
Feb
DCs
Feb
Ave.
Mar
DCs
Mar
Ave.
Apr
DCs
Apr
Ave.Ia.1. Clients are stable upon
completing treatment C&F 14.2
47%
35%
38%
33%
> 75% DCd clients complete treatment: per DC code
Adult 12
39%
21%
35% 33%
Discv 9 14 50% 11 22 67% 7 Sandy 8.3 29% 32% 31% Intsv. 6 18 50% -2 29 21 21 65% 20 30%
FmlPsy 1
%
Crisis 10
100%-2
14% 17% 25%
Psych 6.8 27 50% -2 16 10% 31 24% 16 16% Cntrct 5 45% 78% 67%
Agency
30%
Indicator /Benchmark GoalsTeam FTE
Jan
Total
Jan
Ave.
Feb
Total
Feb
Ave.
Mar
Total
Mar
Ave.
Apr
Total
Apr
Ave.IIa.1 Clients keep appointments C&F 14.2 91% 86% 84% 86%
80% of appointments
-Individual Sessions kept-Adult 12
88%
88%
87%
86%
Discv 9 95% 97% 97% 88% Sandy 8.3 87% 82% 91% 81% Intsv. 6 90% 93% 88% 83%
FmlPsy 1
85%
92%
93% 83%
Crisis 10 86% 91% 96% 97% Psych 6.8 74% 78% 77% 83% Cntrct 5 85% 70% 88% 60% Agency
83%
County Behavioral Services 2007 Team Scorecard - Compiled by Chris Potter, Systems Evaluator
Indicator /Benchmark Goals Team FTE
Jan
Total
Jan
Ave.
Feb
Total
Feb
Ave.
Mar
Total
Mar
Ave.
Apr
Total
Apr
Ave.
III a.1 60% Direct Service maintained
C&F14.2
53 hours
62 hours
63 hours
59 hours
Standard = 85 HOURS/month Adult 12 70 hours 70 hours 76 hours 62 hours Discv 9 49 hours 48 hours 54 hours 52 hours Sandy 8.3 41 hours 53 hours 54 hours 49 hours Intsv. 6 55 hours 58 hours 54 hours 48 hours
FmlPs
y1
34 hours
38 hours
Crisis 10 22 hours 35 hours 44 hours hours Psych 6.8 54 hours 51 hours 40 hours hours Cntrct 5 89 hours 80 hours 83 hours hours
Agenc
y
hours
IIIb.1 Clinicians maintain appropriate caseload size to Practice
C&F14.2
39 cases
41 cases
45 cases
cases
80% of clinicians maintain appropriate caseload size
Adult 12
48 cases
54 cases
57 cases cases
Discv 9 41 cases 41 cases 42 cases cases Sandy 8.3 67 cases 64 cases 55 cases cases Intsv. 6 14 cases 15 cases 16 cases cases
FmlPs
y1
23 cases
23 cases
22 cases
cases
Crisis 10 13 cases 13 cases 12 cases cases Psych 6.8 127 cases 128 cases 128 cases cases Cntrct 5 28 cases 29 cases 27 cases cases
Agenc
y
cases
County Behavioral Services 2007 Team Scorecard - Compiled by Chris Potter, Systems Evaluator
County Behavioral Services 2007 Team Scorecard - Compiled by Chris Potter, Systems Evaluator
Indicator /Benchmark Goals Team FTE Jan Feb Mar Apr
IVa.1 Standards for documentation met C&F 14.2 94% 93%
90% of Timeliness Standards Adult 12 81% 92%
SPMI 9 83% 86%
Sandy 8.3 85% 94%
Intsv. 6 99% 89%
FmlPsy 1 94% 98%
Crisis 10 70% 95%
Psych 6.8 84% 84%
Cntrct 5 92% 97%
Agency
Percentage of Clients Discharged, who completed treatment
26%
21%
27%28%
25% 25%
28%
23%25%
32%
27%
22%
24%
20%
28%
13%
17%
28%
0%
20%
40%
7/1/
2006
8/1/
2006
9/1/
2006
10/1
/200
6
11/1
/200
6
12/1
/200
6
1/1/
2007
2/1/
2007
3/1/
2007
4/1/
2007
5/1/
2007
6/1/
2007
7/1/
2007
8/1/
2007
9/1/
2007
10/1
/200
7
11/1
/200
7
12/1
/200
7
Yes No Linear (Yes) Linear (No)
ServerName (All) AnasaziSupervisorName (All) ClinicianType (All)
Average of PercentDischargedZeroThree
MonthOfData
ODSD?
Percentage of individuals Discharged having 'completed Tx.' (with DC code '3') against all Discharged Clients (with DC codes: '3, 2. 5, 6, 8, 9, 13')Benchmark Ia.1 > 75% clients are stable upon completing treatment
Percentage of Clients who 'Showed' for individual Sessions: 2007
79%
83%82%
84%
81%83%
79%
84%85%
83%
86%84%
87%86%
84% 85% 84%83%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
7/1/
2006
8/1/
2006
9/1/
2006
10/1
/200
6
11/1
/200
6
12/1
/200
6
1/1/
2007
2/1/
2007
3/1/
2007
4/1/
2007
5/1/
2007
6/1/
2007
7/1/
2007
8/1/
2007
9/1/
2007
10/1
/200
7
11/1
/200
7
12/1
/200
7
Yes No Linear (Yes) Linear (No)
AnasaziSupervisorName (All) ServerName (All) ClinicianType (All)
Indiv. Show %
MonthOfData
ODSD?
Benchmark IIa.1 Clients keep > 80% of scheduled Individual appointments
Clinician Average Direct Service hoursBenchmark IIIa.1 60% Direct Service Ratio is maintained 1FTE = 977 hours/year (81.4
hours/month)
35
42
36
43
39
34
38
43
5047
50
44 43
47
37
45
38
33
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
7/1/
2006
8/1/
2006
9/1/
2006
10/1
/200
6
11/1
/200
6
12/1
/200
6
1/1/
2007
2/1/
2007
3/1/
2007
4/1/
2007
5/1/
2007
6/1/
2007
7/1/
2007
8/1/
2007
9/1/
2007
10/1
/200
7
11/1
/200
7
12/1
/200
7
Yes No Linear (Yes) Linear (No)
AnasaziSupervisorName (All) ServerName (All) ClinicianType (All)
Average of AdjustedDirectServerHours
MonthOfData
ODSD?
Unduplicated Cases (Caseload Size)
3254 3260 32743402 3431 3412 3437 3463 3486 3533 3583 3543 3555
3650 3591 3540 3510
3315
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
7/1/2006 8/1/2006 9/1/2006 10/1/200611/1/200612/1/2006 1/1/2007 2/1/2007 3/1/2007 4/1/2007 5/1/2007 6/1/2007 7/1/2007 8/1/2007 9/1/2007 10/1/200711/1/200712/1/2007
Yes No Linear (Yes) Linear (No)
AnasaziSupervisorLastName (All) ServerName (All) ClinicianType (All)
Sum of UndupCases
MonthOfData
ODSD?
Benchmark: IIIb.1 90% of clinicians maintain equitable caseload size: based upon Evidence Based Standards, or compared to similar clinicians on team.
Percentage of Progress Notes complete
67%
73%
69%
75%74%
72% 72% 73%75% 75%
74%76% 77%
76%
85%
77%76%
79%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
7/1/
2006
8/1/
2006
9/1/
2006
10/1
/200
6
11/1
/200
6
12/1
/200
6
1/1/
2007
2/1/
2007
3/1/
2007
4/1/
2007
5/1/
2007
6/1/
2007
7/1/
2007
8/1/
2007
9/1/
2007
10/1
/200
7
11/1
/200
7
12/1
/200
7
Yes No Linear (Yes) Linear (No)
AnasaziSupervisorName (All) ServerName (All) ClinicianType (All)
Average of DocumentationPercentage
MonthOfData
ODSD?
Benchmark IVa.1 90% of Clinicians meet Timeliness Standards for completing Progress notes
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2006
Yes
No
Linear (No)
Linear (Yes)
Hospital (All) AdmitCode(All) InsuranceCode(All) Age (All)
Count of AdmitsDate
YOA Month
ODSD?
BH Hospital Admissions: 2006
BH Hospital Admissions: 2006 - 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Yes - 2006
Yes - 2007
No - 2006
No - 2007
Linear (No - 2006)
Linear (Yes - 2007)
Linear (Yes - 2006)
Hospital (All) AdmitCode(All) InsuranceCode(All) Age (All)
Count of AdmitsDate
Month
ODSD?YOA
System Process Improvement Initiative Trial Title:
Date: Initiator: Agency/component(s):
Initiative Purpose:
Initiative Procedures:
Desired Outcomes: 1.
Potential negative consequences: 1.
Data Set(s): 1.
Initiative Timeline (Initiation, Process stages, Review points):
1.
County BH System Process Initiative Trial Title: Prescriber & Care Coordination Teams
Date: 9/20/2007 Initiator: Chris Potter, Policy Analyst Agency component(s): Psychiatric, Care Coordination Initiative Purpose: Over the previous year County BH prescriber and care coordinator direct service
totals fell below desired benchmark goals. Audited treatment plans did not consistently identify measurable, rehabilitation objectives per discipline. These concerns were partially explained by:
Inconsistencies in service coding Excessive case management responsibilities performed by psychiatric providers Insufficient appointment times scheduled for care coordinators High no-show rates for prescribers (especially on initial appointments) Poorly coordinated inter-disciplinary treatment planning and review processes Insufficient coordination of care between care coordinators and prescribers
This System Process Initiative Trial aims to address these concerns by creating teams comprised of a care coordinator and a prescriber. The care coordinator’s primary role would be to assist prescribers with clients who require more intensive case management in order to make progress on rehabilitative goals.
Initiative Process Trial: This initiative entails a trial period of at least one month in which two care coordinators are teamed up with two prescribers. Each care coordinator would work along side the prescriber, providing intensive case management services to clients in order to enhance the treatment response. These Care Coordination services, defined in treatment plan objectives and interventions, would include Managing the treatment plan and tracking client’s progress Providing resource development services necessary for rehabilitation Providing referrals for community services, as agreed upon with the prescriber Calling clients between medical appointments to inquire on health status, follow-through on
medication administration, use of coping skills and of other resources. Meeting with the client for 15 – 20 minutes prior to medical appointments to review progress Developing an aftercare plan that reflects a less intensive level of care Coordinating care between other health care providers (including therapists) Starting treatment plan revisions, or reviews, preceding the prescriber appointment
Desired Outcomes: 1. Increased prescriber direct service totals 2. Improved treatment response (outcomes) 3. Improved quality of the treatment plan, reflecting good care coordination 4. Decreased no-show rates
Possible negative consequences: 1. Higher case loads for care coordinators ‘not’ teamed up with prescribers 2. Scheduling issues: assuring care coordinators & prescribers are available at right times. 3. Decrease in care coordination direct service totals (due to more ‘non-direct’ service
Data Set(s): 1. Prescriber and care coordinator direct service hours/month 2. Audits of treatment plan quality 3. Client ‘show rate’ 4. Client treatment Outcomes (GAF & Client Outcome Rating Scales)
During the ODSD Project, Program Managers were provided with Data Reports and Charts on a monthly basis. Also, upon request, they would receive customized reports and charts pertaining to: 1.Diagnostic Analyses, 2.Access, 3.Utilization of Services, 4.Treatment Outcomes, and 5.Benchmark Performance The following slides demonstrate three examples of how data was collected and presented to Program Managers for assistance in making data informed Program Policy decisions.
Available appointments per week
Total
10
14
5
10
6
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Alternate Fridays
Total
Therapist (All) Time (All)
Intake Appointments
Day of Week
Total
8
10
7
17
7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
Total
Supervisor Rohrer-Heyerly, LeonUnit (All) Appointment Appointment KeptFTE (All) Service Initial AssessmentStart (All) StaffName (All) Date (All) Month 12
Intakes
Day
Actual appointments for 4 weeks: 12/06
10 11 6 10 5 919 23
3024
81
82
77
104
142
7387
187
163
181
163
180 195
138125
154
127
175
134126
114
131
103
149
128119
101
137
142
100
161
1 10
50
100
150
200
250
3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 6
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Dingman, Patty
Group Individual
Div (All) StaffName (All) Service (All) Unit (All) Date (All) StartHr (All) Appointment Appointment Kept
Events
Supervisor Day Month
Grp-Ind
Events of Service by Day and Month
To assess basic functioning ability for individuals receiving treatment, and individuals’ response to treatment, Self-Assessment Tools were integrated into the Electronic Health Record. The following slides show examples of the Outcome Assessment Tools that were used (the initial version and the short version).Analysis of this data had just begun prior to cessation of the ODSD Project.
* Outcomes Assessment Tool Case #:
Client Name: Date:
Today’s appointment is scheduled with: First Appointment
Reason for today’s visit:
Considering the past 2 weeks, circle your best choice for each of the following questions:
1. How well have you been sleeping?
1-Very poorly 2-Poorly 3-Fair 4-Well 5-Very well 2. What has your mood been like?
1- Very down, upset, or nervous 2- Down, upset, or nervous 3- Fair mood 4- Good mood 5- Very good mood 3. How well have people been getting along at home?
1-Very poorly 2-Poorly 3-Fair 4-Well 5-Very well 4. How has your physical health been?
1-Very poor 2-Poor 3-Fair 4-Good 5-Very good 5. How often have you been drinking alcohol (over 2 drinks at a time)?
1- Every day 2- Most days 3-3 to 4 times weekly 4- Weekly or less 5- Not at all 6. How often have you been using illegal, street drugs?
1- Every day 2- Most days 3-3 to 4 times weekly 4- Weekly or less 5- Not at all 7. How well have you been able to get things done, to accomplish your goals?
1-Very poorly 2-Poorly 3-Fair 4-Well 5-Very well 8. How well have you been doing with others?
1-Very poorly 2-Poorly 3-Fair 4-Well 5-Very well 9. How well has your provider listened to, and understood you? First session
1-Very poorly 2-Poorly 3-Fair 4-Well 5-Very well 10. How helpful has treatment been? First session
1- not at all 2-very little 3-somewhat 4-helpful 5-Very helpful
For clinician: Current GAF/CGAS: Evaluating Clinician: * Outcomes Assessment Tool: derived from ‘National Outcome Measures’ & ‘Common Factors in Psychotherapy’ Updated 10/16/2007
* Outcomes Assessment Tool (Short Version) Case #:
Client Name: Date:
Today’s appointment is scheduled with: First Appointment
Circle your best choice for each of the following questions (since last session):
1. How well have you been sleeping?
1-Very poorly 2-Poorly 3-Fair 4-Well 5-Very well 2. What has your mood been like?
1- Very down, upset, or nervous 2- Down, upset, or nervous 3- Fair mood 4- Good mood 5- Very good mood 4. How has your physical health been?
1-Very poor 2-Poor 3-Fair 4-Good 5-Very good 5. How well have you been able overcome problems and make progress toward your goals?
1-Very poorly 2-Poorly 3-Fair 4-Well 5-Very well 6. How well have you been getting along with others?
1-Very poorly 2-Poorly 3-Fair 4-Well 5-Very well 7. How much has treatment been helping? First session
1-Very little 2-Little 3-Somewhat 4-Much 5-Very Much
For clinician: Current GAF/CGAS: Evaluating Clinician:
* Outcomes Assessment Tool: derived from ‘National Outcome Measures’ & ‘Common Factors in Psychotherapy’ Updated 10/16/2007
*Health Care Coordinator Provides Behavioral **LOC Needs Assessment, Referrals, Brief Therapy, and
Resource Coordination Provides Behavioral Treatment integration
with PC plan, coordination or care, and Utilization oversight for Specialty Services
Patient Presents with Physical, A&D and/or
Mental Health Symptoms
Referred by self, PCP, community
provider, etc.
Data Point
Specialty Services: •Medically appropriate Level of
Need treatment setting •Specific Evidence Based Programs•Intensive Care Management• Community Resources• Prevention and Early intervention
Data Point
*HCC: Health Care Coordinator **Level Of Care Need developed by Chris Potter, M. Ed.
Outcome Driven System Integration ProcessOutcome Driven System Integration ProcessProvides multi-system Performance Outcome Data feedback Establishes, tracks, and reports on progress toward Benchmark Performance Goals Consults in Quality Improvement & Utilization Management ProcessesEncourages use of Outcome Driven System Development Initiatives
Data Point
With increased pressures upon the health care system to contain costs and provide higher quality of care, insurance utilization managers appear to be requiring more stringent authorization requirements for specialty services. As a result, care providers are encouraged to be more strict about their scope of services. This has lead to an environment of ‘it’s not my responsibility’, in which the patient is vulnerable to more fragmented care.
Consequently, it is even more important that we develop a system that reinforces the integration of care. Hopefully, an Outcome Driven System Development approach can create incentives to encourage Primary Care, Behavioral Health, and other care providers to work together in the best interest of the patient customer.
ODSD Model for integrating Care
Outcome Driven System Development
A Strategic Process Improvement Model for Behavioral Health Systems
by Chris Potter, M. Ed.
503-740-1494