Dialysis facility compare dfc website evaluation
Download
1 / 72

Dialysis Facility Compare DFC Website Evaluation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 230 Views
  • Updated On :

Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) Website Evaluation. ESRD Stakeholders Meeting March 25, 2004 Michael Trisolini, PhD, MBA RTI International. Presentation outline. 1. Project Overview 2. Website Presentation & Navigation 3. Facility Characterisics 4. Quality Measures

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Dialysis Facility Compare DFC Website Evaluation' - brand


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Dialysis facility compare dfc website evaluation l.jpg
Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) Website Evaluation

ESRD Stakeholders Meeting

March 25, 2004

Michael Trisolini, PhD, MBA

RTI International


Presentation outline l.jpg
Presentation outline

1. Project Overview

2. Website Presentation & Navigation

3. Facility Characterisics

4. Quality Measures

5. Dialysis and Kidney Disease Information & Links

6. Next Steps



Personnel l.jpg
Personnel

CMS Project Officer

Eileen Zerhusen, RN, BSN

DFC Evaluation Project Staff

RTI

Michael Trisolini, PhD, MBA

Amy Roussel, PhD

Shelly Harris, MPH

Karen Bandel, MPH

Philip Salib, BA

MEI

Dorian Schatell, MS

Kristi Klicko, BS


Project timetable l.jpg
Project timetable

Sept. 2002 – Nov. 2002 - Planning, recruiting participants

Dec. 2002 – June 2003 - Qualitative data collection with 6 types of respondents

July 2003 – Oct. 2003 - Reports and recommendations, begin mock-ups of revised DFC

Nov. 2003 – Nov. 2004 - Develop and test mock-ups of revised DFC, develop new content


General objectives l.jpg
General objectives

  • Gain feedback on current DFC content and features from patients, family members, and professionals

  • Investigate current patterns of DFC use

  • Study information needs of potential DFC users

  • Identify ways to improve the DFC


Qualitative data collection l.jpg
Qualitative data collection

  • Focus groups

  • Triads (small focus groups)

  • In-person interviews

  • Telephone interviews


Locations for data collection l.jpg
Locations for data collection

  • Site visits (about 1 week each)

    • Washington, DC

    • Atlanta

    • Chicago

    • Phoenix

  • Telephone interviews


Respondent types l.jpg
Respondent types

Number

  • Dialysis patients & family members 98

  • Dialysis professionals & technicians 98

  • Pre-ESRD (CKD) patients & family members 42

  • Pre-ESRD professionals 8

  • Senior staff of dialysis chains, MCOs & DMOs 18

  • Senior staff of national renal organizations 6


Dialysis patients family l.jpg
Dialysis patients & family

Number

  • Hemodialysis patients 63

  • Peritoneal dialysis patients 12

  • Family Members 23

    ----

    TOTAL 98


Dialysis professionals techs l.jpg
Dialysis professionals & techs

Number

  • Nephrologists 9

  • Nurses 22

  • Social workers 29

  • Dietitians 25

  • Technicians 9

  • Renal administrators 4

    ----

    TOTAL 98


General findings 1 l.jpg
General findings - 1

  • Few respondents currently using the DFC

  • HD & pre-ESRD patients pleased to have access to the data on DFC, saw it as relevant, but wanted more data and more user-friendliness

  • Dialysis family members & PD patients less satisfied

  • All respondents had many ideas for improvements to DFC


General findings 2 l.jpg
General findings - 2

  • Dialysis patients perceived to have less choice among facilites when starting, but more later

  • Variation by site

  • Pre-ESRD patients & family have many learning needs

  • Pre-ESRD educational programs are in early stages of development


General findings 3 l.jpg
General findings - 3

  • Internet access less of a problem than expected

  • Public reporting of quality data perceived by professionals to have value for quality improvement

  • MCOs & DMOs saw applications for DFC

  • CMS perceived as honest broker for dialysis & facility information


Rti recommendations l.jpg
RTI Recommendations

  • Based on findings from research

  • Currently proposals being evaluated by CMS staff

  • Implementation now under consideration



Readability l.jpg
Readability

  • Aim for 5th grade reading level

  • Settle for 7th – 9th grade reading level

  • Provide button to increase font size


Reduce density of text l.jpg
Reduce density of text

  • Break long text sections into manageable pieces - “chunking”

    • Short sentences & paragraphs

    • Bulleted lists

    • Columns to limit line length to 30-50 characters

    • Subheadings


Example current dfc l.jpg
Example – current DFC

  • Read This: The information in Dialysis Facility Compare should be looked at carefully. Use it with the other information you gather about dialysis facilities as you decide where to get dialysis. You should visit any facility in which you are interested and talk with the dialysis facility staff. You may also want to contact your doctor, local ESRD Network or State Survey Agency for more information before you choose a dialysis facility. The telephone number for the local ESRD Network and State Survey Agency can be found in the Helpful Contacts section of this website.



Spanish l.jpg
Spanish

  • Create a Spanish language version of DFC

  • Use model from Nursing Home Compare

    • “Vea en Espanol” button on each page in English

    • “View in English” button on each page in Spanish


Increase non text content l.jpg
Increase non-text content

  • Graphics, photographs, diagrams, cartoons

  • Mapping function with “zoom” (like MapQuest)

  • Animation

  • Audio clips, video clips



Concerns with non text content l.jpg
Concerns with non-text content

  • Section 508 – accessibility for visually impaired beneficiaries

  • Load time

  • Hardware, software requirements


Reduce scrolling l.jpg
Reduce scrolling

  • Add headings with hyperlinks

  • Add tabs and sub-tabs for results



Add user friendly features for those with little web experience l.jpg
Add user-friendly features for those with little web experience

  • Tabs or hyperlinks for special populations

    • PD patients

    • Family members

    • CKD patients

    • Pediatric patients and their parents

  • Clarify context, “why to use DFC”


Slide28 l.jpg

Revised DFC Mockup experience


Facility characteristics table l.jpg
Facility characteristics table experience

  • Enable facility characteristics table to show 4-6 facilities per screen versus 2

  • Reduce font size if needed, with option to switch back to larger font and 2 facilities per screen



Slide31 l.jpg

Current DFC experience


Participants suggested many new facility characteristics l.jpg
Participants suggested many new facility characteristics experience

  • Patient issues

  • Staffing issues

  • Organizational issues

  • Policy issues


Pd patients have special information needs l.jpg
PD patients have special information needs experience

  • Number of PD staff

  • Number of PD patients

  • PD patients per PD nurse

  • PD training

  • PD supplies and equipment


Pre esrd patients and family made fewer suggestions l.jpg
Pre-ESRD patients and family made fewer suggestions experience

  • Don’t know enough to know what they need to know

  • Very interested in the experience of receiving dialysis care

  • Patient checklists would be very helpful


Add patient checklists l.jpg
Add patient checklists experience

  • DFC cannot offer everything

  • Encourage patients to contact dialysis facilities and providers with specific questions

  • Provide detailed list of potential areas of inquiry


Consider facility characteristics from sims database l.jpg
Consider facility characteristics from SIMS database experience

  • Review available data elements

  • Add relevant facility characteristics


Consider information on state surveys and inspections l.jpg
Consider information on state surveys and inspections experience

  • Follows Nursing Home Compare (CMS exploring similar approach for DFC)

  • Most recent Medicare certification (initial certification date already posted on DFC)

  • Most recent state survey date

  • Deficiencies cited

  • Add to checklist


Information on amenities l.jpg
Information on amenities experience

  • Topics highlighted by respondents:

    • Support groups

    • Visitor policy

    • Accessibility for people with disabilities

    • Televisions

    • Data ports

    • Cleanliness

  • Add to checklist


Information on scheduling l.jpg
Information on scheduling experience

  • Shift times

  • Hours and days of operation

  • Add to checklist


Offer more information about modalities l.jpg
Offer more information about modalities experience

  • Availability

  • How many patients are receiving various modalities

  • Add to checklist


Staffing information l.jpg
Staffing information experience

  • Staffing ratios

  • Certification or training of technicians

  • Number staff on site

  • Clinical staff availability

  • Add to checklist


Slide42 l.jpg

Revised DFC Mockup experience



Adequacy anemia l.jpg

Adequacy & Anemia experience

3. Quality measures


Presentation very appealing l.jpg
Presentation – very appealing experience

  • Colored bar graphs

  • Comparisons to national & state averages

  • Multiple facility comparisons


Content l.jpg
Content experience

  • Patients & family members liked comparing facilities

  • Kt/V & hemoglobin preferred by professionals

  • But URR & hematocrit considered acceptable

  • Professionals had some casemix concerns

  • Age of the quality data was not a major concern for patients & family members, but was for professionals


Text explanations problematic l.jpg
Text explanations – problematic experience

  • Glossary definitions too complicated, too long

  • Explanations above the bar graphs better, but not great

  • Reading level too high

  • Too much text – patients & family usually skip over it


Patient survival l.jpg

Patient survival experience

3. Quality measures


Patients family l.jpg
Patients & family experience

  • Statistical language hard to understand – “better than expected”

  • Explanation above the results table unclear to many

  • FAQs better

  • Most prefer bar graphs (adequacy & anemia) to the check marks in the patient survival results table

  • Most still wanted to see survival data


Professionals l.jpg
Professionals experience

  • Concern that non-facility factors affect survival

    • Percent elderly & nursing home residents

    • Percent poor nutrition or non-compliant

    • Percent comorbidities

  • Some understood existing casemix adjustments (age, race, gender, diabetes) but many missed it

  • Also liked FAQs

  • Suggested text explanations too complex for patients & family


Recommendations l.jpg

Recommendations experience

3. Quality measures


General l.jpg
General experience

  • Add (a few) more quality measures

  • Consider PD-specific quality measures

  • Replace “Not Available” with specific reasons


Slide53 l.jpg

Current DFC experience


Slide54 l.jpg

Revised DFC Mockup experience


Presentation l.jpg
Presentation experience

  • Revise text explanations

    • Reduce amount of text

    • Highlight links to FAQs & expand them

    • Lower reading level

    • More use of non-text methods – diagrams, pictures, graphics

  • Consider presenting quality data as trends over time


Recommendations for new measures 1 l.jpg
Recommendations for new measures - 1 experience

  • Patient satisfaction (experience of care)

    • STRONG preference of patients (they want to hear from other patients)

    • A way to have their “voice” heard

    • Also supported by professionals

    • Most dialysis facilities already collect these data


Recommendations for new measures 2 l.jpg
Recommendations for new measures - 2 experience

  • Transplant waiting list

  • Vascular access

  • State survey results


Recommendations for new measures pd l.jpg
Recommendations for new measures - PD experience

  • PD-only adequacy (Kt/V)

  • Albumin levels


Recommendations for changing measures l.jpg
Recommendations for changing measures experience

  • Kt/V versus URR

  • Hemoglobin versus hematocrit

  • Follow Clinical Performance Measures

  • Most facilities already collect these data



Uses of dfc for patient education l.jpg
Uses of DFC for patient education experience

  • Patients would like more information on a range of topics

  • Professionals saw potential for use in educating patients

  • CKD educators could add to their resource lists and classroom exercises

  • Currently limited applicability to PD patients


Additional information sought 1 l.jpg
Additional information sought - 1 experience

  • Patient experience of treatment. E.g., “What’s it like to be on PD?”

  • Information on clinical aspects of dialysis & renal disease

  • Information on dialysis and CKD self-care (e.g., nutrition, vascular access)


Additional information sought 2 l.jpg
Additional information sought - 2 experience

  • More on transplantation

  • More on PD

  • Explanations of medical terms (e.g., “necrotic”)

  • Meaning of lab results – link to quality measures

  • Implications of patient non-adherence to treatment

  • Rights and responsibilities of patients


Develop checklists for patients l.jpg
Develop checklists for patients experience

  • Reinforce message that patients should seek information from facilities and providers directly

  • Patients often don’t know what to ask

  • Support patient involvement in decision-making and in managing their own care


Make web links more prominent and more extensive l.jpg
Make Web links more prominent and more extensive experience

  • Other federal and state resources

  • Renal organizations

  • External information sources

  • Patient education resources


Consider special needs of new dialysis and ckd patients l.jpg
Consider special needs of new dialysis and CKD patients experience

  • Would like better understanding of kidney function and renal disease

  • Adjusting to dietary changes

  • Facing choices:

    • how to delay need for dialysis

    • vascular access

    • dialysis modality

    • transplant

    • dialysis facility


Consider information needs of other special populations l.jpg
Consider information needs of other special populations experience

  • PD patients

  • Family members

  • Pediatric patients & their parents

  • Non-English-speaking patients


6 next steps l.jpg

6. Next Steps experience


To provide input l.jpg
To provide input experience

  • Eileen Zerhusen, CMS

    • Ezerhusen@cms.hhs.gov

  • Michael Trisolini, RTI

    • mtrisolini@rti.org


Questions comments l.jpg
Questions & comments experience

  • Comment form in conference notebooks

  • Microphones in aisles


Rti next steps l.jpg
RTI Next Steps experience

  • Assist development of Next Generation DFC

  • Test new language and text

  • Develop and test checklists

  • Plan additional revisions to DFC


Cms next steps l.jpg
CMS Next Steps experience

  • Consider additional quality measures for public reporting


ad