1 / 22

Partnering to Improve Quality of Care in Substance Abuse Treatment

Partnering to Improve Quality of Care in Substance Abuse Treatment Pat Ebener, RAND Corporation Jim Dahl, Phoenix House Foundation Collaborators RAND: Suzanne Wenzel, PI; Maria Orlando, co-PI; Donna Farley, Kirsten Becker Phoenix House:

Leo
Download Presentation

Partnering to Improve Quality of Care in Substance Abuse Treatment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Partnering to Improve Quality of Care in Substance Abuse Treatment Pat Ebener, RAND Corporation Jim Dahl, Phoenix House Foundation

  2. Collaborators • RAND: • Suzanne Wenzel, PI; Maria Orlando, co-PI; Donna Farley, Kirsten Becker • Phoenix House: • Wallace Mandell, co-PI; Leslie Damesek, Masami Ohashi • Staff in 22 Phoenix House community-based adult and adolescent treatment programs and prisons in California, New York, Texas, Florida, New England

  3. Background on Our Partnership • RAND and Phoenix House: A 7-year partnership • Shared objective: Routinely monitor and improve quality of care • Task: Develop a system of linked information assessing structure, process, and outcomes of treatment that can be applied in routine practice settings to improve quality of care

  4. Study Goal and Specific Aims • Goal: Improve quality of care in the therapeutic community • Phases/Aims: • Refine and gather validity evidence for client process instrument (DCI) across treatment subpopulations • Validate refined DCI by examining factor structure, in-treatment change in client scores, and the association of scores with proximal and distal outcomes and with program activities and environment • Examine how treatment programs use treatment process information within a continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework

  5. The Dimensions of Change Instrument (DCI) 1. Acceptance of Community Responsibility Community Environment 2. Clarity and Safety in Community 3. Participation in Group Process 4. Resident Sharing, Support, and Enthusiasm 5. Introspection and Self-Management 6. Positive Self-Attitude and Commitment to Abstinence Personal Development and Change 7. Personal Problem Recognition 8. Maintaining External Social Network 5

  6. Enter Treatment 30+ Days 90+ days 180+ days 270+ days Stay Stay Stay Stay Leave Leave Leave Leave The DCI Measures Change Over Time for Residents Remaining in Treatment

  7. Adolescent Stayers ( 254 residents) vs. Leavers ( 98 residents) at 30 Days:Personal Development & Change Dimensions # 7 7

  8. All Adults (172 residents) at 270 Days: Community Environment Dimensions 8

  9. All Adults ( 341 residents) at 90 Days: Community Environment Dimensions vs. ( 139 residents) Long Island Programs 9

  10. Phase 3: Using the DCI Data in a Quality Improvement Demonstration • Participating programs receive information on DCI scores for their members from Phase 2 work • Experimental programs prepare and carry out quality improvement action plans aimed at improving DCI scores • Monitor implementation and assess effects of quality improvement actions on program outcomes ProgramsExperimentalControl Adult 2 1 Adolescent 2 1

  11. Timeline for Phase 3 Activities

  12. Partnering to Plan Phase 3 • Formed joint RAND-Phoenix House Planning Committee • Invited candidate programs to briefing at NY Workshop • Circulated monthly newsletter on status of Phase 3 planning • Jointly developed Workshop agenda and materials

  13. Morning Meetings House Meetings Seminars Encounter Groups Job Functions Rewards and Sanctions Staff Roles Peer Roles Physical Environment The Core TC Program Elements

  14. TC Program Elements and Related DCI Community Environment Dimensions

  15. TC Program Elements and Related DCI Personal Development & Change Dimensions

  16. Crosswalk Prepared for Program Teams

  17. Partnering on P3 Launch Workshop • Analyze DCI scores and assess performance of related program elements • Identify barriers to successful implementation • Develop an overall quality improvement strategy and specific actions • Establish measures and a process to monitor progress

  18. Workshop Results and Preliminary Impressions • Day 1. Group observation forms completed by PH Research Dept. and RAND staff found: • Most group members had moderate to mostly sufficient understanding of the data for informed discussion • Most groups had enthusiastic participation • Members of groups were typically not stressed by the tasks and felt they had sufficient time for discussion • Day 2 programs all completed analysis and action planning process and briefed each other on their plans: - 3 strategies target Encounter Groups - 1 targets Staff Roles

  19. Partnering on Next Steps: Support for Implementation Activities • Training personnel, programs and materials prepared by the Phoenix House Training Center • Guidance by RAND for monitoring methods • Development of measures • Data collection methods • One-on-one phone and e-mail consultation, conference calls, site visits

  20. The Process Evaluation: Learning from Experiences • Purposes • Learn from the programs’ experiences as they use DCI data and take actions to strengthen relevant program elements • Use the process information to help interpret results for outcome measures • Process evaluation components • Monthly conference calls for progress reports • Site visits after months 3 and 9 of Phase 3 • Mini-QIPs performed in month 6 of Phase 3

  21. Outcome Evaluation: Outcomes To Be Monitored • Change in DCI scores – administer DCI to clients in experimental and control programs at two points in time • Start of phase 3 (baseline) • Month 7 of phase 3 (post-intervention) • Change in client retention rates • Changes in measures collected on the Phoenix House QIP

  22. Lessons From Planning and Launching the Demonstration • Novel and creative approach to QI • Strong working relationship is critical • Complex data can be overwhelming • Simplify presentation • Reduce volume • Provide talking points for group facilitators • Include researchers in facilitated break-out groups • Structure the planning process • Expect to provide ongoing technical assistance

More Related