maryland s participant experience survey n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Maryland’s Participant Experience Survey

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 10

Maryland’s Participant Experience Survey - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Maryland’s Participant Experience Survey. Lisa Kelemen RN, MSN Administrator, Real Choice Systems Change Grant. Participant Experience Survey (PES). Survey tool created by Medstat, obtained through CMS. 15 minute in-home survey measured overall waiver program experience in 4 domains:

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Maryland’s Participant Experience Survey' - patsy

Download Now 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
maryland s participant experience survey

Maryland’s Participant Experience Survey

Lisa Kelemen RN, MSN

Administrator, Real Choice Systems Change Grant

participant experience survey pes
Participant Experience Survey (PES)
  • Survey tool created by Medstat, obtained through CMS.
  • 15 minute in-home survey measured overall waiver program experience in 4 domains:
    • Access to care, choice and control, respect and dignity and community integration.
  • Survey performed by the University of Baltimore.
    • Helped with sampling.
    • Performed scheduling and interviews.
    • Compiled results.
participant experience survey pes1
Participant Experience Survey (PES)
  • Survey first done in 2004.
    • Results distributed and focus groups convened.
    • Waiver-improvement strategies identified for program improvement.
    • New questions added.
  • In 2005, DHMH surveyed 547 OAW and LAH waiver participants in 16 jurisdictions.
understanding the results
Understanding the Results
  • Results are reported in percentages and raw numbers.
  • Numbers represent the number of people with an unmet need or who report a problem.
  • Worked with UB to determine “statistical meaningfulness”.
    • A statistical meaningful result is a change of 9% change in either direction.
  • Overall, 2004 and 2005 results were consistent.
  • New waiver satisfaction question added.
    • Participants in both waivers reported a high level of satisfaction.
result highlights access to care
For both years surveyed, results generally stayed the same.

Indicates that most participants are getting assistance with ADL’s and IADL’s.

Transportation remains a problem.

Additional question asked to see if participants are missing medically-related appointments.

8% (5) of LAH and 34% (19) of OAW participants who state they do not always have transportation when needed claim they have missed medically-related appointments.

Result Highlights - Access to Care
result highlights choice and control
Result Highlights – Choice and Control
  • In 2005, we asked participants to name their case manager.
    • Names compared to those in our database.
    • Results showed a large number of participants still could not name their case manager.
  • Ability to contact CM and CM helpfulness ultimately more important. Results for both of these indicators improved.
    • Both LAH and OAW showed the same trend.
result highlights respect and dignity
Result Highlights – Respect and Dignity
  • Three Respect and Dignity indicators improved in the Living at Home Waiver.
  • Results otherwise stayed the same in both waivers.
result highlights community integration
Result Highlights - Community Integration
  • Large percentage of participants in both programs report an unmet need for community involvement.
  • Fewer LAH participants report they are not working but would like to work.
who answered the questions
Who Answered the Questions?
  • Large number of participants had assistance answering the questions.
  • 40% of LAH and 45% of OAW had assistance.
  • Results analyzed based on who answered the questions.
  • No significant difference between the groups.
    • Results are in the report.
next steps
Next Steps…
  • Distribute results and identify waiver-improvement strategies.
  • Future surveys?
    • PES is costly and grant funding is no longer available.
    • There is no value to a yearly PES.
    • Could extract specific questions of greatest importance and add to other regularly-performed surveys. Use 2004-2005 results as a baseline.