Monday, August 15, 2016

Jeff Gibbs – MA, A Study For – An Anti-Helper For Health & Human Services – Measurement Results



20160815-M: Charter Information
Title Eliminations – Alternate Titles For Our Data

Measurement Results and Outcomes

Jeff Gibbs – MA, A Study For – An Anti-Helper For Health & Human Services – Measurement Results

Jeff Gibbs A Master of Arts (MA), A Study Of – Health & Human Services - Sustaining An Online Presence – Results and Outcomes

Abstract – Executive Summary
This report has taken about one (1) year to complete. We chose two primary subjects. Oswaldo Escalante our first helper for The Program is our control. Jeff Gibbs our fourth helper for The Program is our test subject. Oswaldo is a recovery addiction specialist or RAS. Jeff has earned his Master’s of Arts in Psychology. We applied approximately ten (10) assessment tools. The origins of the tools are as follows: Assessments prescribed by The Program, assessments developed by others, and assessments we developed ourselves. We are MSG or Mentation Solutions Group. This is a Scared Rabbit Production. Our control assessment is that supported by the The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) referred to as Stars. The Program currently (2016) has earned three (3) Stars. We find that Oswaldo performed in a manner exceeding three (3) Stars. Alternately, Jeff performs in a manner below three stars. The table below will further address the assessments for which the results presented here come. Our goal for this study is to contribute to The Program that it may earn more Stars as soon as possible. Our Introductory material is posted separately. As time proceeds we plan on printing updates as needed.

Hyperlinks

Results
Gibbs Study 2016 Results For Summer Quarter

Introduction
Gibbs Study Introduction For Summer Quarter 2016

Register of Assessments Applied in this Study
-
 
 
 
Assessment
Applied In This Study
Origin
 
-
 
 
 
Satisfaction
X
Prescribed by Corporate
 
CMS Stars (Overall Control)
X
CMS
 
Invoice & TimeSpent
X
MSG
 
Partnership (RDA)
X
Resource Development Associates
 
Competency Cluster (Battery)
X
MSG
 
OCHCA MHSA VMV
X
OCHCA
 
Resource Value Analysis
 
 
 
We Needed Perspective
Prior Studies and Profiling
X
MSG
 
TQN – MD Assessment
X
MSG
 
Stages of Partnership Evaluation
X
MSG
 
Meaningful Yet Missed Previously
X
MSG
 
When Kill Partnership Tool
(Greer-Modified)
X
Greer
 
Program Evaluation
Post Event Evaluation (MSG, 2011)
 
MSG
 
-
 
 
 
20160820 – Table – Assessment Tools

Appendices
-
Event Evaluation Form (Held over for being out of scope)
When to Kill Association
Feature Assessment - RDA Partnership – Modified
TQN Evaluation (Control for Satisfaction)


Satisfaction Assessment As Prescribed by The Program
Results – The Program – Annual Consumer (Member) Satisfaction Survey (ACSS)
Includes Helper Modification (HM)

-
 
 
 
 
 
TimeStamp
Interval
% Satisfied
Compare
“stars”
About Who
 
-
 
 
 
 
 
20130706-R
FY2012
56.0
2.8
Whole Program
 
20130706
FY2013
63.2
3.2
Whole Program
Prescribed
 
Skip Year
FY2014
 
 
Whole Program
 
20151121
FY2015
52-67 (**)
3.4 HV
Whole Program
Prescribed
 
20160812-E
FY2016
Improved
(*)
 
Whole Program
Expected
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016
FY2016
 
3.0
CMS Whole Program
Stars
 
20160812-R
FY2013/14
71.9
3.6 HM
Oswaldo Escalante, RAS
 
20160812
FY2015/16
34.4
1.7 HM
Jeff Gibbs, MA
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
 
 

Table of Satisfaction Results Using Program Prescribed Assessment Tool – Features comparison between two Program Helpers

(*) = Improved due to controlling for our underperforming helper
(**) = Two different scoring algorithms applied
CMS = What is - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
E = Expected
NS = Not Solicited
R = Retroactive
“stars” = MSG star values as compared to CMS Stars

Costs and Benefits - Invoice




Objectivity and Comparisons (Controlling)
Doctor Dobos said (Circa 2000) that being critical might be a sign of improvement.  Our client asked to perform internal quality reviews as a new responsibility for a job he was working back in 1986.  He declined because he didn’t wish to police his co-workers who were also friends. While running two small businesses our client gained experience writing employee performance reviews for thirty or so employees.  As most of us know staff attendance is weighted high.  MSG prefers positive reviews above negative reviews.  Please reference some of our positive reviews via the links below.  Also there is a review in the Appendix section. 

We Needed Perspective
Prior Studies and Practice with Profiling
-
 
 
 
 
Individual
Capacity
Capacities
Outcome of
Critique
Link
 
-
 
 
 
 
Dobos - Intro
Psychiatrist
Favorable
 
Dobos - Measures
Service & Support Outcomes
Favorable
 
 
 
 
 
 
Escalante
Case Manager
& Helper
Favorable
Embedded in this study
 
 
 
 
 
 
GGT
Parent & Parenting
Favorable
 
 
 
 
 
 
GYG
Employer
& Mentor
Highly Favorable
 
 
 
 
 
 
Schwabe
Professor
Highly Favorable
 
 
 
 
 
 
Self
Advocate & External Quality Review
Favorable
To Numerous
 
 
 
 
 
 
TQN
Physical Doctor
Dermatology
Highly Favorable
Retained due to conflict
 
 
 
 
 
 
EAK
Younger Relative
Stellar
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Links to Other MSG Reviews

Associate Resource Value Analysis
-
 
 
 
 
Resource
Note
CMS
Star Fit
What Best Describes This Resource
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Program
CMS Stars Control
 
2016
3.0
Highly variable between clients
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ali E
Helper-03
>
Inspirational
“So you would like to move ahead”
 
Connie S
 
>
Personalized QC correspondence
 
Derek C
Helper-PRN
>
Stable – Very Good
 
Diana M
 
>
Trustworthiness
 
Oswaldo E
Helper-02
>
Helpful across multiple domains of functioning
 
 
 
 
 
 
Francis V
Helper-03
<
Deceitful
 
Jeff G
Helepr-04
<
A NoResource
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jessica
 
=
Trending Up (2012-2016)
 
Sophia E
Satellite
=
A NoResource
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table – Resource Value Analysis – Jeff Gibbs and His Associates About The Program

CMS Stars Score for this Target Program = 3.0 of 5.0 for 2016 (5 is the best)

Partial List of Acronyms
Helper Assessment Register (Battery)
-
 
 
 
Labels
Translations
 
 
-
 
 
 
BHS
Behavioral Health Services
 
 
CMS
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
 
 
HHS
Health & Human Services
 
 
HHS-P
HHS - Partnership
 
 
HHS-P-C
HHS-P-Competency
 
 
OCHCA
Orange County Health Care Agency
 
 
P&D
Progressive and Dynamic
 
 
RDA
Resource Development Associates
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table – Brief List of Acronyms

Competency Assessment Register (Battery)
Progressive Health & Human Services Partnership Study
-
 
 
 
 
Labels
Translations
Source(s)
Items
 
-
 
 
 
 
HHS-P-CE
HHS-P-C Evaluation
MSG-Derived
16
 
HHS-P-CS
HHS-P-C-Scale
MSG-Derived
15
 
HHS-P-CP
HHS-P-C-Performance (Review)
MSG-Derived
18
 
HHS-P-SE (N)
HHS-P-Stages Evaluation
MSG-Derived
P & D
 
 
 
 
 
 
HHS-20160708-GS
HHS-P-Gap Scale
MSG-Derived
27
 
 
 
 
 
 
HHS-P-VMV
HHS-P-Value – Mission - Vision
OCHCA-MHSA
41
 
 
 
 
 
 
HHS-P-RDA
HHS-P-RDA Version
Modified
16
 
-
 
 
 
 
Table of MSG’s Partnership Assessments

Feature Assessment
RDA Partnership – Modified – In Appendix

MSG Easy Score Protocol (MSG-ESP)
Scoring Key and Scales
-
 
 
 
Real Number Value
Marks
“star” Equivalents
 
-
 
 
 
1.0
P / IP / PASS / N/A / PP / SC
5.0
 
0.5
Partial / So-So
2.5
 
0.0
F / Fail / NAR
0.0
 
-
 
 
 
Table – Scoring Key and Scales

Adjusting Time Spent – Planning to Quality Review
Quarterly we here at MSG usually complete and submit a treatment plan.  The form set for The Programs comprehensive treatment plan (The Plan) was provided to us by our Helper Oswaldo Escalante (RAS-I) back in 2012.  The parts are as follows: A Collaborative Personal Recovery Plan (CPRP), a Terms Of Participation (TOP) worksheet, and a Quality Of Life (QOL) assessment. Previously (2012-2015) we spent a good deal of time updating and sharing our plans.  The plans that we often updated every three (3) months define priorities for monthly discussion.  Our client has progressively met more unmet needs.  There are a few still outstanding about which we need help. 

New Helper – Jeff Gibbs (MA) – Charter External Quality Review
Our new Helper (Helper Number-04) is Jeff Gibbs, MA.  He has had the chance to review and return results about three planning clusters now.  Even though he says he is going “look it over” he never seems to know what is going on with us.  We failed to impress upon him using standard means our unmet needs that we still need help with.  We surrendered this quarter and did not submit our updated plan.  Our strategy, rather to focus on us this quarter, is to focus on the resource value & partner value with Jeff Gibbs MA.  After our 3rd meeting with Mr. Gibbs our client requested an out from his supervisor (Jessica) and she said” “Give it another try”.  Well this is the form of our giving “it another try”.


Progressive Partnership Competency in
Health and Human Services
Competency About the Helping Professions
Score Report (Report Card)

20150811-TU: Started Investigation about HHS Partnership Competencies (HHSPC)
Date 20160615-W: All updated and finalized

Subjects
-
Oswaldo Escalante - RAS
The Client Keith E Torkelson - MS
Jeff Gibbs - MA

(Augmented PASS-Fail System)
Except RDA-16 (Binary System)

Assume all are in the context of Health & Human Services (HHS)
-
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment
AcroCode
Code-Items
Partner 1 & 2
The Client
Keith T
% (Items)
Partner 2
The Helper
Jeff Gibbs
% (Items)
Partner 1
Control
Oswaldo Escalante
% (Items)
 
-
 
 
 
 
 
Satisfaction
Addressed Earlier
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Star Fitting Correlating to Program Stars (CMS)
Program – 3.0
[Control]
Above 3.0
60%
Below 3.0
60%
At 3.0
60%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Partnership Value (RDA-16)
P-RDA-VA-16
20160708-F
Mirrors Partner
21.9% (16)
87.5% (16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation - 16 Item
P-CE-16
81.3% (16)
12.5% (16)
50% (16)
 
Scale - 15 Item
P-CS-15
80.0% (15)
00.0% (15)
46.7% (15)
 
Performance - 18 Item
P-CP-18
77.8% (18)
11.1% (18)
81.3% (16)
 
Gap Scale
P-C-GS-27
96.3% (27)
14.8% (27)
94.4% (27)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vision-Mission-Values (OCHCA-41)
P-VMV
84 (41)
16% (41)
65% (41)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table - Progressive Health & Human Services Competency Index (PHHSCG-I-5) – Report Card as of June 15, 2016 – Wednesday.  Reports PASSes/Items Scored as Percentages

Score Report – Summary
Above is MSG’s score report comparing helping competencies across three test subjects.  The relationships (partnerships) began during the summer of 2012.  Keith T is the client and also a “Prosumer”.  Jeff Gibbs the current helper was first observed face-to-face as early as 2012.  Oswaldo Escalante (RAS) was Keith’s Helper for nearly two years starting in 2012.  It has come time for Keith to update and submit his health and welfare planning package to Jeff Gibbs.  We were linked with Jeff Gibbs on June 30, 2015.  Like all of our new helpers (four since 2012) we begin with an updated plan.  We have submitted three plans in all receiving no educated or strategic feedback. 

Client Centered
Keith gathers this client centered approach is getting us nowhere.  With this report we have evolved.  Rather than submit an updated plan we will evaluate our service experience with Jeff Gibbs (MA).  On July 14th, 2015 we expressed our concern that Jeff Gibbs was not a good fit to another Helper (Jessica). She said to stick it out. We have tried our best for almost a year to capture Jeff’s strengths.  We saw him yesterday (July 2016) and he elicits in us a feeling of dread.  In the end for a total of more that 50 competency assessment items Jeff scores poorly (Generally Incompetent).  “Ozie” and Keith score better (Generally Needs Improvement).  We here at MSG would have no problem face-to-face addressing these results with Oswaldo.  We predict that if and when we discuss this with Jeff Gibbs it will be quite stressful.

Potential to Cause Harm
One off the reasons we prefer positive reports is that people we review negatively may have potential to cause harm.
 
Link To Introduction


Appendix Items - Appendices

Event User Satisfaction (Form) (Not in scope right now - Held Over)
When to Kill an Association
Feature Assessment - RDA Partnership – Modified
TQN Evaluation (Control)
Imagery First Method

When to Kill an Association
Appendix – Why Terminate

Why Kill this Project (Partnership or Association)
Greer Method (2001)

 
 
 
Criteria
Satisfied
Reason/Details
 
 
 
When it no longer has strategic value
Yes
No longer contributes to my organization’s long- or short-term business strategies
When it is simply no longer feasible
Yes
Project cannot be done under current circumstances
When deliverables repeatedly fail to appear, despite best efforts of the team
Yes
Resources have been exhausted
Resources will be re-allocated and re-leveled
When the deliverables are substantially and continually behind schedule
Yes
After 6 months we had hoped to have some interpretations returned to us
After 6 months we had hoped to be further along with meeting our unmet needs
When there are more issues than successes
Yes
Issues out number successfully complete milestones and deliverables
When budget or resource allocations are continually exceeded
Yes
My personal budget and resource allocations have been exhausted for this partnership
 
 
 
 
 
6 of 6 Criteria to Kill this Project have been satisfied
 
 
 
Table 4 of 5 – Guideline: When to Kill the Project (Appendix E: Greer, 2001) –Standard
Finalized: 20160821-SUN:

References

Greer, M. (2001). The Project Manager’s Partner: A Step-by-Step Guide to Project Management: 2nd Edition.  HRD Press, Inc. Amherst MA. Contains 150 pages, plus Appendices.

Feature Assessment - RDA Partnership – Modified
 
Feature Assessment


Appendix-RDA 

Outcomes For RDA-Modified Partnership Assessment
MSG-RDA-PV (16 Items)-

Calculations – Yields HHS Partnership Value (HHS-PV)
-
 
 
 
 
Partnership Values
Gibbs
FY2015/16
Escalante
FY2013/14
Kline
FY2015/16
 
-
 
 
 
 
Your Partnership Overall
0.5
4.5
4.5
 
Leadership Elements
1.5
3.5
4.0
 
Satisfaction With Partnership
2.5
5.0
4.5
 
-
 
 
 
 
Total Score
4.5
13.0
12.5
 
 
 
 
 
 
Items Scored – MAX Score
16
16
16
 
-
 
 
 
 
Partner Value (HHS-PV)
28.1 %
81.1.7 %
78.1 %
 
Disposition
Kill Partnership & Level Resources
Lost Resource
Sustainable Resource
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table - Resource Development Associates (RDA) - Modified
Date Finalized: 20160821-SUN 

Instructions for Scoring

1.0  = Yes – Favorable – Strength
0.5 = So-So – Average
0.0  = No – Deficit 

Reported as Percentages
HHS = Health & Human Services

Overall Partnership
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Your Partnership’s Overall…
Gibbs
FY2015/16
Escalante
FY2013/14
Kline
FY2015/16
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
01
Synergy score
(<2) 0.0
(>2) 1.0
(>2) 1.0
 
02
Score for leadership effectiveness
0.0
0.5
0.5
 
03
Efficiency score
0.0
1.0
0.5
 
04
Score for the effectiveness of administration and management
0.5
1.0
1.0
 
05
Score for sufficiency of non-financial resources
0.0
1.0
1.0
 
06
Score for sufficiency of financial and other capital resource
0.0
1.0
0.5
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.5/6 *100
= 8.3 %
4.5/6 * 100
= 75.0 %
4.5/6 * 100
= 75.0 %
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table – Results – Partnership Overall
QC Date: 20160821-SUN:
 
Leadership in the Partnership
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Leadership Elements
Gibbs
FY2015/16
Escalante
FY2013/14
Kline
FY2015/16
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
07
Comfort with decisions made in partnership
0.5
0.5
0.5
 
08
Do I buy in to my partner’s decisions
0.5
1.0
1.0
 
09
Do I include my partner in decision-making
0.0
1.0
0.5
 
10
Have I benefited in this partnership
0.5
1.0
1.0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.5/4 * 100
= 25.0 %
3.5/4 * 100
= 87.5 %
3.0/4 * 100
= 80.0 %
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table – Results – Leadership Elements in Partnership
QC Date: 20160821-SUN:

Satisfaction with Partnership
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Satisfaction Elements
Satisfaction with…
Gibbs
FY2015/16
Escalante
FY2013/14
Kline
FY2015/16
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11
Level of Cooperation
0.5
1.0
0.5
 
12
Impact
0.5
1.0
1.0
 
13
Their role
1.0
0.5
0.5
 
14
Partners Goals and Plans
0.0
1.0
0.5
 
15
Partners Implementation of Plans
0.0
0.5
1.0
 
16
Benefits V Drawbacks
(Benefit V Costs)
(=) 0.5
(>) 1.0
(>) 1.0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5/6 * 100
= 41.7 %
5.0/6 * 100
= 83.3 %
4.5/6 * 100
= 75.0 %
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table – Results – Satisfaction with Partnership
QC Date: 20160821-SUN:
 
Appendix - TQN Evaluation

 
Gallery of Images

 
Jeff Gibbs Internet Presence
Online Presence 20160815
 

Wise Up Janet Weiss

 
Keith Torkelson's
Cool World in Blue Shift 20080123

 
Why Dress for Success?


Graduating away from one of my most significant support people
Her family therapy program is superior to any offerings at Jeff Gibbs Program


An associates work station at the site where I do my volunteer work


More evidence that if I am treated right I do improve


Field Work
Outreach


The Technology Conference


Our Boss for Our Primary Volunteer Work (On the Right)
We are attending a two day conference (2016) for which she found funding for me to attend
She is one of my best friends



Health Related Engagement
Facilities That Give Dignity about Recovery
20160518 @ 0830
CAAC Conference @ The Delhi Santa Ana - California


Consumer Art - Capture Method
"Down"


"Turning Down The Heat"
20160620 @ 1701
Now lets let Jeff Gibbs support cool things down from 110

 
Red Arrow Points to Jeff Gibbs
We were hoping he took some photos of us members so they can put them in
The Programs Newsletter

 
Health Related Engagement (One full day)

 
If treated properly I do improve
I took over twenty years to get my foot treated properly
In other words I was Inappropriately Served for Years

 
A Friend "S" Deteriorating Fast
He reported that a garage door hit him in the head and
Then he began showing "symptoms"

 
You rarely know if they are rolling on a Psych Call
This is one thing we are trying to avoid with preventive advanced planning

 
Field Work - Engaging the Homeless

 
Partners Past and Present
I met Alan (lower right corner) back in 2003 in Laguna Niguel
August 26, 2016 Update
We are going to his mothers funeral today
In Costa Mesa - California
Oh! and That is Josie in the other frames

 
Back to the Books for Jeff
Maybe he will get a study buddy
Health - Education - Welfare 20160113
 
Consumer Art
"Gravity Divided"
20160601 Dominion by Keith Torkelson
Computer Graphics

 
And Finally - The Programs CMS Stars Distribution
A Control for this Study

 
#EBR
#SRP
 





No comments:

Post a Comment