Aligning Efforts for DSME Data Collection. May M. Leonard, R.N., BSN, MSBA Angela M. Vanker, MPH

Transcription

1 Aligning Efforts for DSME Data Collection May M. Leonard, R.N., BSN, MSBA Angela M. Vanker, MPH Sept. 9, 2015

2 Lake Superior Quality Innovation Network (QIN) Michigan (MPRO) Minnesota (Stratis Health) Wisconsin (MetaStar) 3,556,723 beneficiaries total 836,205 beneficiaries 966,151 beneficiaries 1,754,367 beneficiaries 2

3 B.2/EDC Goals Michigan 1,380 beneficiaries Diabetes PATH (Stanford) Minnesota 486 beneficiaries DEEP and DSMP Wisconsin 500 beneficiaries DEEP and DSMP 3

4 B.2/EDC Data Collection Three patient-level forms are necessary for completion: Demographics form Pre-survey Post-survey 40 percent of beneficiaries need to complete both pre and post survey. 4

5 Data Collection Barriers Current programs collect some pieces of the same information Some organizations believe collecting patient information requires institutional review board (IRB) approval Perceived rules of what other organizations can collect Willingness to understand and incorporate information in current programs 5

6 Success Story in Michigan Informed our state department of health Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) early in the process Decided to offer Diabetes PATH (Stanford) in alignment with MDHHS Have collaborated with other programs offering Diabetes PATH to provide one data collection method, including EDC information 6

7 Road to Collaboration MDHHS helped identify another group with similar goals Area Agency of Aging Association of Michigan (4AM) received funding from the state (Michigan Health Endowment Fund) Meeting occurred in March 2015 Lake Superior QIN/MPRO B.2 leadership and coordinator 4AM leadership MDHHS leadership and Diabetes PATH coordinator 7

8 Data Comparison Forms used by MDHHS and EDC were compared MDHHS uses a participation information form (PIF) Identified fields which were similar and fields which were missing Example: EDC: Are you male or female? PIF: What is your sex? Male/Female 8

9 Data Comparison One question from EDC demographic form was not agreed to by MDHHS: EDC: What is your birthdate? PIF: What year were you born? Birthdate is considered PHI by MDHHS and did not want to change from an organizational decision CMS Q&A was submitted re: EDC birthdate Moved forward with year of birth on PIF 9

10 Data Collection Roll-Out MDHHS updated PIF with EDC info New forms were rolled out to PATH/D-PATH leaders at May 27 statewide meeting Package of forms to each leader: PIF Pre/post surveys Mandatory for leaders to use at each PATH/D- PATH course All forms contain participant ID which is assigned at first day of class 10

11 Data Process to QIN-QIO MDHHS receives all forms from PATH and Diabetes PATH leaders Lake Superior QIN/MPRO staff on-site at MDHHS monthly to scan information Data from scantron database analyzed by Lake Superior QIN/MPRO analyst for inclusion in evaluation 11

12 Key Takeaways State health department is key driver to adopt collection of data Alignment with state DSME offering was crucial Mutual benefit in data collection Collaboration has reduced duplication of effort beyond data collection Assisted other state partners in modeling structure but organizational/political barriers still exist 12

13 Acknowledgments Lake Superior QIN B.2 team Samantha Strassburg & Lake Superior QIN/MPRO team MDHHS Karen McCloskey, PATH coordinator Dawn Crane, diabetes nurse educator 4AM Mary Ablan, executive director 13

14 Thank You! Follow us MPRO represents Michigan in the Lake Superior Quality Innovation Network. This material was prepared by the Lake Superior Quality Innovation Network, under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 14 (CMS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The materials do not necessarily reflect CMS policy. 11SOW-MI-B