Site Review Team:
Christine Butler,
Community Member Jane
Franks, Peer Reviewer
Linda Hurley, Peer
Reviewer Vicki
Thayer, Peer Reviewer
Connie Greco, Lead DMHDD
QA Staff Pam Miller, DMHDD
QA Staff
Jane Atuk, ILP Technical
Assistance Staff John Havrilek,
Facilitator
Sherry Modrow,
Co-Facilitator
The Site Review Team conducted a review of state-funded Infant Learning, Developmental Disabilities and Counseling Center services at Tanana Chiefs Conference from August 30 to September 3, 1999, using the Integrated Quality Assurance Review process.
This report is the summation of the impressions of a community team after interviewing consumers, staff members, community members and staff of other agencies. It includes a limited administrative review. The report does not represent or reflect a comprehensive review of this agency. The community team has collaborated on this report and the findings represent their consensus. DMHDD Quality Assurance staff conducted the Clinical Record Review and provided that section of this report.
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC) is a nonprofit tribal
organization representing 42 tribal governments in Interior Alaska. TCC
incorporated as a nonprofit organization in 1972. It serves and represents
approximately 14,000 Alaska Natives residing in an area of 235,000 square
miles, covering 39% of the state. The corporation provides services through
state grants and federal contracts and grants to Alaska Natives and non-native
residents of small communities along the Yukon, Tanana, Koyukuk and Kuskokwim
Rivers and their tributaries.
TCC’s organizational history reflects the importance of balancing traditional Native values with the modern demands facing indigenous peoples. The organization provides specially tailored programs to its constituents in health, employment, education, economic development and general family services.
Tanana Chiefs Conference’s member tribal organizations elect a 43-person Board of Directors and a nine-member Executive Board. The full Board elects the president, who serves as the CEO of the corporation. TCC administers over 40 programs through seven regional offices. The corporate administration is located in Fairbanks.
In 1998, TCC was recognized as one of the 60 largest employers in the state of Alaska, with more than 600 full-time and part-time staff distributed between the regional office in Fairbanks, seven subregional district offices, and more than 30 communities.
TCC manages approximately $65 million annually. The
organization completes an annual independent audit.
Infant Learning Program: 3 FTE staff, 43 children receiving services in 20 villages
Infant Learning Specialists work as a team with families, other providers and contract specialists to provide family-centered services, which respect the cultural differences and community values of rural Alaska. The Fairbanks-based staff members travel regularly, attempting to visit each family approximately every 5 weeks to evaluate, plan services, and provide or facilitate special instruction, advocacy and specialized therapy.
Developmental Disabilities Program: 1 FTE staff, 42 individuals in 21 villages active on respite caseload, 10 individuals on waitlist
This program offers assistance for families of children with developmental disabilities primarily by providing vouchers for respite care. The program’s sole staff member provides limited case management, advocacy and referral and helps families to develop individual plans of service based on a child’s needs and family preferences. From the Fairbanks office, the Family and Community Services Specialist uses telephone and fax to stay in contact with individuals and tribal coordinators in the villages. The program provides vouchers to families, who hire their respite providers. The relationship between consumers and respite providers is a contractual agreement in which TCC has no involvement beyond voucher payments. The program does not supervise or provide funding for training respite provider. Although there is a travel budget, the staff person has no back-up coverage for office functions, so is only rarely able to visit the villages where most of the consumer families live.
Counseling Center: 6 FTE staff, 40 clients in case management, coverage in all TCC villages and Fairbanks
The TCC Counseling Center, located in the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital building, provides mental health services and support to Alaska Natives and American Indians. Residents of Interior villages fly to Fairbanks at TCC’s expense for regular appointments for psychiatric evaluation and medication management, case management, referral and information, intake and crisis intervention services. The Counseling Center offers crisis intervention and information and refers clients to outpatient services by contracting with Fairbanks-area mental health professionals. The Paul Williams House also provides services for crisis respite. The Institutional Discharge Program and Community Support Program provide case management services to the chronically mentally ill from the villages and Fairbanks.
Description of Review:
The Integrated Quality Assurance Site Review Team met for five days in Fairbanks. The team consisted of three community representatives, three peer providers, two facilitators, two DMHDD staff and an ILP staff person. The team reviewed individual ILP and DD consumer files and program and agency materials, and interviewed 24 consumers of TCC services and 14 staff members. The review also included interviews with 12 individuals from the following related service agencies: Public Health Nursing, Fairbanks Correctional Center, Adult Learning Programs of Alaska, TCC Head Start, University of Alaska Rural Programs, Division of Family and Youth Services, Public Defender Agency, Fairbanks Resource Agency, ACCESS Alaska and Yukon Flats School District. Interviews lasted between 30 minutes and an hour.
Monitoring and reporting the quality of life and the quality of services for individuals and families make significant contributions to the State of Alaska’s understanding of the effectiveness of program services and supports. The review team’s findings are reported below.
The report includes TCC’s responses to the previous action plan; related service agency comments; an administrative review; consumer responses to the Quality of Life Standards. The report also includes recommended improvements and tables of consumer satisfaction and file reviews.
Open Forum: TCC staff advertised an Open Forum by distributing a flier in Fairbanks and in each village. The flier was posted in several locations in the TCC building in Fairbanks and was provided to other community agencies. The flier included prominent notice of a toll-free telephone number for people outside the Fairbanks area to call to provide their comments. A meeting room was provided in the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s Noel Wien Library. No one attended or called.
Progress Since Previous Review: As this was the first site review under the Integrated Quality Assurance system, there was no previous review available for comparison or response.
It must be noted here that the site review team felt their review of TCC’s mental health services was inadequate. The core of the measure of outcomes in the lives of consumers is based on consumer interviews. Generally, in an agency with this level of state funding, 15 consumers would be included, thus providing a significant sample and one from which conclusions may be drawn. Unfortunately, TCC’s MH program could only offer five consumers in a residential facility to be interviewed and those chosen were not able to be completely available, emotionally and cognitively, for an interaction of this sort. Therefore the team cannot claim that the findings below present either an adequate or an accurate picture of TCC’s MH services.
Given the above facts, the team recommends that another
review be scheduled that would include a sufficient number of consumer
interviews to present a balanced picture of the satisfaction of TCC consumers
with their services and their lives.
CHOICE AND SELF DETERMINATION
Based on the small number of consumer interviews conducted, the team was unable to identify the strengths under Choice and Self-Determination for people receiving MH services from TCC.
The team identified the following weaknesses under Choice and Self-Determination for people receiving MH services from TCC:
- There is a long wait-list for seeing a psychiatrist.
- There is a perceived lack of therapeutic services: “We need a therapist that does therapy.”--consumer
DIGNITY, RESPECT
AND RIGHTS
The team identified the following strengths under Dignity, Respect and Rights for people receiving MH services from TCC:
+ Consumers and other agencies recognize the respect with which consumers are treated:
“I would rather work with TCC than other providers. They give us prompt, up-to-date info. and they care about their clients.”—related service agency
Consumers reported they feel extremely respected.
+ Case managers reflect their respect and concern for the consumers by their hard work. They are a recognized strength of the program: “Case managers are working their tails off; they’re awesome.”--consumer
The team identified the following weaknesses under Dignity, Respect and Rights for people receiving MH services from TCC:
- Three of the five consumers interviewed had not signed the release of information provided.
- Some related agencies would like more collaborative efforts and communication with TCC.
HEALTH, SAFETY AND
SECURITY
The team identified the following strengths under Health, Safety and Security for people receiving MH services from TCC:
+ TCC psychiatric staff does an excellent job of medication management.
The team identified the following weaknesses under Health, Safety and Security for people receiving MH services from TCC:
- Budget cuts are perceived as negatively affecting staffing and service levels.
RELATIONSHIPS
The team identified the following strengths under Relationships for people receiving MH services from TCC:
+ One of the Counseling Center staff’s strong points is their longevity. Stable staff can build professional relationships with consumers.
+ The staff model healthy relationships: TCC fosters teamwork among case managers: “We have great teamwork.”—direct service staff
Based on the small number of consumer interviews conducted, the team was unable to identify the weaknesses under Relationships for people receiving MH services from TCC.
COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION
Based on the small number of consumer interviews conducted, the team was unable to identify the strengths and/or weaknesses under Community Participation for people receiving MH services from TCC.
MH
|
Choice
N=5
|
Dig&Res. N=5
|
Hth,Saf,Sec N=5
|
Relatns. N=5
|
Com.Par. N=5
|
||||||||||
Outcome
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Person/Parent/guardian
|
3 |
2 |
|
4 |
1 |
|
5 |
|
|
4 |
1 |
|
5 |
|
|
Staff
Performance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Person/Parent/guardian
|
5 |
|
|
3 |
2 |
|
5 |
|
|
4 |
1 |
|
5 |
|
|
* Five consumers in a
residential facility were interviewed from this program. Not all were unable to
respond to necessary questions. The team does not feel that this chart
adequately reflects the life situations of TCC MH consumers as a group.
The staff appeared to be extremely supportive of consumers and their ability to work together as a team, but was concerned about budget cuts.
Agencies were very supportive of TCC services, but would like more collaborative efforts in the Community Support Program, in the Institutional Discharge Program and in crisis intervention.
Administrative and Personnel Narrative
TCC overall has strong administrative policies and
procedures. In an organization of this size, input of consumers in small
programs may not be reflected in the agency’s overall processes. Consequently,
the Counseling Center does not meet Administrative and Personnel Standards
numbers 6, 12, 14,and 22. (See Areas
Requiring Response)
Program Management
Budget cuts appear to have negatively affected staffing and service levels.
INTRODUCTION - The clinical
chart review was conducted for the purpose of determining the agency’s training
needs in order to provide documentation that reflects good clinical
practice. Another reason for the review
was to conduct a mini-event audit for the Division of Medical Assistance (DMA)
to determine that the services delivered are reflective of the services billed
to Medicaid. The charts reviewed were
determined by a random sample taken from data supplied by DMA. The number of charts to be reviewed was
determined by a Range Table based on the total number of cases supplied by
DMA. There were fifteen (15) Medicaid
charts reviewed, ten (10) adult charts and five (5) child charts. There were no
non-Medicaid charts reviewed.
STRENGTHS- One of the most
noteworthy strengths of this agency is their desire for information. The clinical director has expressed a desire
to have training in areas of Medicaid billing and documentation
requirements. In the area of
documentation, the charts reflect assessments
that are well written, and do a great job in supporting the given diagnoses.
Overall, progress notes were well
documented.
WEAKNESSES-
If psychiatric assessments are used
as comprehensive assessments, please
make sure they include all the components required by regulations and
standards. It appears that the agency
puts more time into the assessment process
than is being reflected in the billings.
There appears to be few rehab services indicated for children, and some
of the charts reflected only substance abuse issues. A review of the billing allowances and contents required for
assessment (comprehensive and psychiatric) and medication management might be
helpful. Some charts do not contain treatment plans and others contain
goals that were not recommended in the assessment material. In some treatment plans, problems were
identified (mostly clinical) that were not recommended for treatment. If the agency only offers psychiatric and
case management, they should document outside referral for other treatment
modalities. Please include the specific
goal being addressed during service episodes and the client progress toward the
goal. The practice of clearly stating active interventions can be more
consistent. In some charts, there were
discrepancies in the progress notes
between the amount of time reflected for the session and the amount that was
billed to and paid by Medicaid. This
resulted in less revenue being paid than was indicated in the progress note. If there is not a system in place to track
billing follow-up, it is recommended that one be implemented. Some charts did
not contain treatment review
documents.
SUMMARY-
The file review should identify areas of documentation that need more attention
in order to reflect good clinical practice.
These areas can be the focus of training for the agency. In this review, the strengths of the
documentation process are reflected in assessment and progress notes. The psychiatric notes are very good.
However, there appears to be a shortage of clinical services delivered by
therapists other than a psychiatrist.
TCC may consider using other Mental Health Professional Clinicians to
provide clinical services and utilize their psychiatrists for evaluations and
monitoring of medications. The treatment plans and treatment plan reviews
reflected the most need for documentation training. You are encouraged to
arrange for training in areas of billing and documentation and to refer to the
Integrated Standards (Oct. 98) and/or to the provider- approved standardized
clinical record forms for the required components. The Mental Health File
Review Checklist in the Integrated Standards discusses the components required
and the timelines for assessments, treatment plans, progress notes, and
treatment plan reviews. The
standardized forms are available in hard copy and on disk (instructions are
included). While the forms are
optional, the components of the forms are mandatory, in order to meet all the
requirements of the Medicaid Regulations and Integrated Standards.
Progress Since Previous Review:
Previous Recommendation: “The team recommends that, in the absence of a designated representative, the program explore effective ways to inform the TCC Executive Board of the program’s accomplishments and needs as well as the issues and level of satisfaction of its consumers.”
Action Taken: The consumer survey has been completed; results will be given to the administration and board. Staff plans to join a related program in forming an advisory board. Each year the program’s annual report is presented to the Executive Board.
Previous Recommendation: “The team recommends that a clear process of appeals be developed for the DD program and made available to all consumers of the program’s services.”
Action Taken: The program has a grievance process in place; the grievance policy is provided to families in the respite packet.
Choice and Self Determination
The team identified the following strengths under Choice and Self Determination for people receiving DD services from TCC:
+ The DD program maintains a strong focus on consumer choice: “Amanda has been my best resource.”-- consumer
+ TCC provides families with a service that allows them to define respite according to their needs, interests and individual respite needs: “I don’t know what I would have done without TCC. I was lost, frustrated; they gave me guidance.”--consumer
The team identified the following weaknesses under Choice and Self Determination for people receiving DD services from TCC:
- Staff should be prepared to consistently provide information and assist families in making referrals to other resources.
- There is a larger case load than one staff person can accommodate.
Dignity, Respect and Rights
The team identified the following strengths under Dignity, Respect and Rights for people receiving DD services from TCC:
+ The respite program is community based: “This respite provider really knows what we are going through.”--consumer
+ DD staff are very responsive to consumer needs.
The team identified the following weaknesses under Dignity, Respect and Rights for people receiving DD services from TCC:
- Consumers said they would benefit from more visits in the villages from the DD staff person; respite providers also expressed a need for training and more on site visits from the staff.
Health, Safety and Security
The team did not have enough information to identify strengths under Health, Safety and Security for people receiving DD services from TCC.
The team identified the following weaknesses under Health, Safety and Security for people receiving DD services from TCC:
- The program lacks a training component for respite providers
Relationships
The team identified the following strengths under Relationships for people receiving DD services from TCC:
+ Respite providers function as a natural extension of family life in the village.
The team identified the following weaknesses under Relationships for all people receiving DD services from TCC:
- Staff turnover appears to have been a problem: “In my three and a half years receiving TCC services, there have been three different staff people.”--consumer
Community Participation
The team identified the following strengths under Community Participation for all people receiving DD services from TCC:
+ The respite program is community based.
The team did not identify weaknesses under Community Participation for people receiving DD services from TCC.
DD
|
Choice
N=10
|
Dig&Res. N=10
|
Hth,Saf,Sec N=10
|
Relatns. N=10
|
Com.Par. N=10
|
||||||||||
Outcome
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Person/Parent/guardian
|
5 |
5 |
|
9 |
1 |
|
8 |
2 |
|
8 |
2 |
|
8 |
2 |
|
Staff
Performance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Person/Parent/guardian
|
9 |
1 |
|
10 |
|
|
8 |
2 |
|
9 |
1 |
|
10 |
|
|
With a caseload of 42 and 10 on waitlist, the single DD specialist needs additional staff, and has requested a three-quarter position. Current staffing limits the ability of the specialist to travel since that would leave the office without coverage. Additional staff would allow for production of a respite booklet with training information about general disabilities to send respite providers and families.
Staff would like funding to link respite providers to basic CPR and First Aid training that are periodically available.
TCC provides staff with an atmosphere of creative freedom, trust and support.
Agencies were very supportive of TCC services and Amanda. They request more training for respite providers and more travel to the villages from the Fairbanks office.
Administrative/Personnel Narrative
TCC overall has strong administrative policies and procedures. In an organization of this size, input of consumers in small programs may not be reflected in the agency’s overall processes, although Amanda has surveyed all consumers, with a very high return of surveys. This is being used to direct program-level decision-making. The program does not, however, meet Administrative and Personnel Standards #6 (See Areas Requiring Response)
Program Management
In the past, frequent staff turnover has been a difficulty. The caseload is extraordinarily large for the single staff person.
The DD files reviewed were well organized and fairly thorough. However, several files needed to have case notes inserted or updated.
It must be noted that the team performed its duties admirably under complex conditions. In order to do justice to the ILP portion of the review, part of the team traveled to Delta, some 75 miles distant, to complete interviews.
Progress Since Previous Review:
Previous Recommendation: “Develop written orientation manual for families.”
Action Taken: The new orientation sheet and parents rights have been in use since the beginning of 1999.
Previous Recommendation: “Assure that all team members contribute information to evaluation reports.”
Action Taken: All suggestions are incorporated into the evaluation report.
Previous Recommendation: “Include criteria, procedures and timelines with each outcome statement.”
Action Taken: Training was received from State ILP. This is an area for continued improvement.
Previous Recommendation: “Include statement of specific services needed in the IFSP.”
Action Taken: All services are listed, whether available or not.
Previous Recommendation: “Expand MOAs with local service providers.”
Action Taken: There are current MOAs with school districts and Head Starts; this needs to be a continuing effort with expansion to additional local service providers.
Previous Recommendation: ”Emphasize family needs in the transition planning process.”
Action Taken: ILP staff is
actively advocating in this area.
Previous Recommendation: “Individualized timelines in written transition plans.”
Action Taken: Transition plans are more detailed and families are involved.
Previous Recommendation: “Review and revise program policies to conform to ILP standards.”
Action Taken: Policy Manual has been updated to meet standards.
Previous Recommendation: “Make salaries competitive with school districts.”
Action Taken: This continues to need additional action.
Previous Recommendation: “Improve program planning and collaboration.”
Action Taken: Program staff collaborate in more activities with other agencies.
Previous Recommendation: “Give families input in the planning process. Utilize information from family in developing programs and priorities.”
Action Taken: Parent survey results incorporated into program planning.
Previous Recommendation: “Assure family participation in hiring process.”
Action Taken: This is ongoing.
Previous Recommendation: “Include more involvement of local supports to increase family visits.”
Action Taken: MOAs are in place with local Head Starts and program is working closely with Head Start programs.
Choice and Self Determination
The team identified the following strengths under Choice and Self Determination for people receiving ILP services from TCC:
+ Most related service providers reported strong collaborative efforts: “Michelle is really good. If there’s any questions, I can ask her.” “They are our eyes and ears.”
+ Parents are given options and choice of family service coordinator when possible.
The team identified the following weaknesses under Choice and Self Determination for people receiving ILP services from TCC:
- Some families were not aware they could get respite services.
- Some Public Health Nurses expressed the need for stronger communication about the types of services available in ILP.
- Some Public Health Nurses reported that residents and service providers did not understand the Infant Learning services and program.
Dignity, Respect and Rights
The team identified the following strengths under Dignity, Respect and Rights for people receiving ILP services from TCC:
+ Parents report high satisfaction with services received: “We were pleased with all the services we’ve had so far.”
+ Parents feel the staff does a good job: “They were right on the ball.” “ILP staff have always been great to work with.”
+ Staff are aware of the agency mission and are respectful of family and community cultural norms.
The team did not identify weaknesses under Dignity, Respect and Rights for people receiving ILP services from TCC.
Health, Safety and Security
The team identified the following strengths under Health, Safety and Security for people receiving ILP services from TCC:
+ ILP staff have developed a process for ChildFind utilizing the “Ages and Stages” questionnaire that could be a model for rural communities in Alaska.
The team did not identify weaknesses under Health, Safety and Security for people receiving ILP services from TCC.
Relationships
The team noted the following strengths under relationships for people receiving ILP services from TCC:
+ The team found that the ILP staff assisted families in making connections with support networking.
+ The staff fosters relationships between siblings and infants.
The team did not note specific weaknesses under Relationships for people receiving ILP services from TCC.
Community Participation
The team noted the following strengths under community participation for people receiving ILP services from TCC:
+ The ILP staff supports families to become active members of the community in culturally relevant activities through use of assistive technology and other methods.
+ The ILP staff assist children to participate in their natural environment and activities in their home and community.
The team did not note specific weaknesses under Community Participation for people receiving ILP services from TCC.
ILP goals are several years old and family involvement has been limited for changing the program goals. Staff asked if funds could be made available to bring program participants to Fairbanks annually to perform a group discussion about ILP goals and program changes.
Staff report that reliable evaluation and survey information are difficult to obtain.
Staff would like to facilitate participation of families in the process of hiring direct service providers. (Administrative and Personnel Standard #22) Suggestions include: A supervisor could ask parents for some questions they would like to have asked during an interview for a new staff member. A supervisor could take a finalist for a position to one or more villages on several home visits as the final step in the hiring process, thereby giving families real involvement in the decision.
Staff would like to see staffing levels adequate to provide on-going programming in the villages. The belief was expressed that visits in intervals of five weeks or longer seriously underserve the intent of ILP and the needs of children and families. The current system sets up family expectations that ILP will have an appreciable impact on a child’s development, but the level of program activity and funding are not sufficient to make those expectations realistic.
More than one staff person expressed anger about a job
classification that occurred two years ago: “I am not a Tech II; ever since
that happened, I have been really angry.” “The agency doesn’t acknowledge the
professionalism of staff. I don’t know why.” The Program Director acknowledged
agency-wide concerns about job classifications, and said it is being worked
on. An individual grievance procedure
does exist.
Related agencies expressed that they like the services from ILP, but they feel there is a need for more frequent visits and a need to explain ILP services at community-wide meetings.
There was concern that three staff people are not enough to serve an area this large.
Administrative/Personnel Narrative
TCC overall has strong administrative policies and procedures. However, there is no mechanism for membership of ILP consumers on the Board.
Program policies and procedures have been recently updated and are beginning to be implemented.
It was reported that staff do not feel a good level of administrative support within the agency. Examples cited included the job classification and lack of support to implement the new Childfind process.
Present ILP staffing is insufficient to serve the caseload adequately or meet goals laid out in the IFSPs. The two vacant ILP positions need to be filled as soon as possible by qualified staff.
Distances and the demands of travel impact the Fairbanks-based program staff negatively. A suggestion was made that the program should look at hiring and supporting paraprofessional staff to work out of each subregional center with appropriate support from professional staff.
The program does not fully meet Administrative and Personnel Standards #6, #20, #39, #41 (See Areas Requiring Response).
Program Management
The classification of these staff positions as Tech II has been a source of real concern. While TCC has procedures for individuals to file appeals to their job classifications, the ILP staff feel their concern needs to be handled for the entire group rather than individually.
File Review
Review of ILP files indicates gaps in documentation, but conversations with consumers and related service agencies shows general satisfaction with services and rapid follow-up on referrals. On-going level of services is not documented well.
One file example: Part C eligible child
Only one entry in contact log, blank direct service reports; only evidence of contacts is: Eval 5/ 6/97
IFSP 10/28/97
Language eval 2/27/98
Exit form 4/23/99
(Were there only 4 contacts in 2 years?)
Overall the case notes and home visit forms (Direct Service Forms) were very hard to follow because dates were frequently incomplete (day or year missing) and very inconsistent. Four of the files reviewed had very limited case notes of any sort.
IFSP is a critical document. It is required for enrollment and drives the services. It is the legal document showing services agreed to by the family and program. Only one of the six files reviewed contained a current IFSP, and that one was not complete (missing was the summary of the child’s development).
Evaluation reports were in all files; parent consent forms were signed and in files for all six cases reviewed. Four files had appropriate exchange of information forms signed by parents. The files are generally organized in the same order. Completion of basic program documentation is a major concern.
1. The agency’s governing body does not include the memberships of consumers or of the family members of consumers. (Administrative and Personnel Standard #6) Consider the creation of advisory boards or the restructuring of the governing board to allow for consumer and family member participation.
2.
The agency’s collection and utilization of consumer
and family opinion in the development of policies and the provision of services
is not consistent through all programs. (Administrative and Personnel Standard
#12) Broaden efforts to gather and use
the opinions of consumers and their families in the development of policies and
in the provision of services.
3.
The agency does not uniformly and annually develop
goals and objectives that are in response to consumers, community opinion and
self evaluation. (Administrative and Personnel Standard #14) Regularize the gathering of opinions and
evaluation and the application of this information in developing annual goals
and objectives.
4.
The agency only partially complies in its efforts
to foster consumer relationships with other community members in a social
setting. (Administrative and Personnel
Standard #26) Strengthen efforts to
facilitate consumer relationships and community involvement.
5.
Regarding MH:
Consumers are negatively impacted by long delays in receiving psychiatric
services. Consider staffing or program
changes that would alleviate this difficulty.
Document these attempts.
6.
Regarding MH:
Consumers express the need for direct therapeutic services. Consider staffing or program changes that
would allow for increased therapeutic services.
7.
Regarding MH:
Given respect for the rights of consumers and the ever-present legal concerns,
systematize the use of releases of information.
8.
Regarding MH:
Develop collaborative policies with related agencies especially for the complex
and critical needs of consumers in the IDP, CSP and crisis intervention
programs.
9. Regarding
MH: The program does not have a procedure by which
consumers can exercise choice in the hiring and evaluation of providers. (Administrative and Personnel Standard #22)
Consider the adoption of policies to allow for a consumer voice in the hiring
and evaluation of direct service providers.
10. Regarding
DD: The caseload far outpaces the staffing in this
program. This is reflected directly in
the consumer requests for more frequent visits and for training for respite
providers and indirectly in the stated need for additional information and
referrals. Consider staffing or program
changes that would alleviate this important difficulty and allow for consumer
needs to be met. These needed changes
may alleviate the further concern regarding turnover of these key staff
positions.
11. Regarding
DD: The quality of respite care is dependent on the
training received by the providers.
Consider ways in which to educate and supervise respite providers. In
the light of health and safety issues, consider providing CPR and First Aid
training to respite providers or link respite providers with community based
health aides for support and guidance.
Additional types of training for
developmental disabilities are also necessary.
12. Regarding
DD: Case notes must be complete and current.
13. Regarding
ILP: The agency does not maintain a system for the
regular review and revision of job descriptions. (Administrative and Personnel
Standard #20) Given the dissatisfaction
expressed by the staff in regard to their classification, consider implementing
a regular review and revision of job descriptions.
14. Regarding
ILP: Staffing levels are insufficient to properly
serve the children and their families in need of these services. (Administrative and Personnel Standard #39)
Implement staffing changes and/or program design in order to provide the
services agreed to in the IFSP.
15. Regarding
ILP: There is a need for a greater number of
specialized staff to provide IFSP services.
(Administrative and Personnel Standard #41) Seek additional staff and/or additional training for staff and/or
MOA’s to meet this standard.
16. Regarding
ILP: Continue the improvement of outcome statements as
per the last site review.
17. Regarding
ILP: Continue to expand the scope of MOA’s as per the
last site review.
18. Regarding
ILP: Attempt to improve the salaries to a competitive
level as per the last site review.
19. Regarding
ILP: Increase efforts to educate your communities in
the services you offer, to whom, why and how.
20. Regarding
ILP: Facilitate the hiring needed to fill the two
vacant positions appropriately and seek to increase staffing levels.
21. Regarding
ILP: Documentation does not meet standards. Case notes and home visit forms (Direct
Service Forms) are very hard to follow because the dates were frequently
incomplete and inconsistent. IFSP’s are
not current nor are they complete. Seek
technical assistance in this important area. Improved staffing or revised
program design could allow for the essential time to put the training into
practice.
22. Regarding
ILP: Improve communication with Public Health
Nurses. Document your efforts.
Note: The team found that because of limited staffing in both the DD and ILP programs services are provided at very minimal, basic levels. The programs deliver these basic services well but the consumer, DD and ILP staff along with the review team realize the need for more services to consumers, more onsite visits, training and related support services.
1. The ILP staff has a real need to know that they are supported by their administrators. The needed support is both personal (valuing their vital work) and professional (aiding in the implementation of the new Childfind process).
2.
Distances and the demands of travel impact the
Fairbanks-based program staff negatively.
A suggestion was made that the program should look at hiring and
supporting paraprofessional staff to work out of each subregional center with
appropriate support from professional staff.
3.
The ILP staff wish to obtain reliable evaluation
and survey information. Technical
assistance from within the agency or elsewhere may be helpful.
4.
The ILP staff would like to facilitate
participation of families in the process of hiring direct service
providers. Suggestions include: A
supervisor could ask parents for some questions they would like to have asked
during an interview for a new staff member.
A supervisor could take a finalist for a position to one or more
villages on several home visits as the final step in the hiring process,
thereby giving families real involvement in the decision.
5.
The ILP staff would like to see staffing levels
adequate to provide on-going programming in the villages. The belief was expressed that visits in
intervals of five weeks or longer seriously underserve the intent of the ILP
and the needs of children and families.
The current system sets up family expectations that ILP will have an
appreciable impact on a child’s development, but the level of program activity
and funding are not sufficient to make those expectations realistic.
6.
It is recommended that DMHDD’s QA staff conduct
training on clinical documentation for the MH staff of TCC.
7.
It is also recommended that the consumer interview
portion of the MH review is conducted again with a more representative sampling
of consumers.
The team expresses appreciation to the MH, ILP and DD staffs for their assistance in the review. The TCC staff’s caring attitudes and dedication to clients and families are particularly notable.
You will receive the official copy of this report in approximately 30 days, with an overview of TCC’s compliance with the Integrated Quality Assurance Standards. TCC, in collaboration with state ILP and DMHDD, will develop plans for program responses to items identified in the review that need further action.