Performance Feedback Reports

Process improvement feedback reports help providers monitor and manage their internal performance. A state or other purchaser can also use a performance feedback system to provide comparative feedback to providers.

The STAR-SI states have used a variety of methods to implement process improvement feedback reports. Any system or group purchaser of services can apply these strategies.

Example Reports—Oklahoma

Oklahoma provides feedback through the Integrated Client Information System (ICIS), which allows online access to a series of monthly reports that:

• Compiled and sent as soon as data for all agencies are available
• Contain data from all providers for comparison purposes
• Focus, for STAR-SI participating providers, on basic NIATx measures for only one month at a time
• Provide online reports with graphs that each focus on a different NIATx measure. Seven basic reports are available:
  • Average Days from 1st Contact to 1st Treatment
  • Average Days from 1st Contact to Assessment
  • Average Days from Assessment to 1st Treatment
  • Average Days from Assessment to Admission
  • Percent of 1st Contacts that become an Assessment
  • Percent of Assessments that become an Admission
  • Percent Continuation
• Breaks NIATx measures into smaller pieces and shows the previous six months’ data for both STAR-SI and mentor agencies.
• Are available for each individual agency, by month, for any given time period; details available by agency satellite location, age group and contract source.
• Show a table of raw data along with a line graph to show a trend over the time frame selected.

In addition, reports are expanded to meet provider requests. For example, extending continuation out to 45 days after admission. The state and providers continue to discuss whether the measures are appropriate and fit each agency’s process.

Other State Examples

• As part of STAR-SI, Illinois developed performance feedback reports so that providers could see review the access and retention indicators of the project. Read the full story for more information.
• New York allows the generation of data warehouse reports by provider or in the aggregate, whether or not a given provider specifically targeted a specific measure.
• Ohio has linked STAR-SI performance measures to departmental Performance Target Outline (PTO). Read the Ohio PTO Guidelines and the Ohio PTO Summary .
• South Carolina facilitates provider comparisons through the STAR-SI program by preparing and disseminating monthly comparative reports .
• Maine provides public and provider access to the TDS reports, allows agencies to request specialized reports, and provides access to the secure TDS web reporting system.

Lessons Learned

State and providers who have implemented a performance feedback reporting system report a number of lessons learned.

• Create whole performance feedback loops that include not isolate the data coordinators in the provider organization.
• Ensure that all persons in the organization who need access to the reports are receiving them. For example, Oklahoma surveyed staff and granted access as needed.
• Provide only the reports necessary for personnel at the state and provider levels to make decisions and effectively use data to make decisions.
• Do not skimp on data quality efforts. These efforts should be ongoing, not dependent on data entry from all sites before running reports. This approach leads to error checking delays and ultimately delays the distribution of performance feedback reports.
• Use pictures or graphs, but remember: one graph, one message.
• Modify reports over time as data is corrected.