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
|
||
-
|
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 appliedCMS = 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
|
||
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
|
|
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
|
||
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
|
|
-
|
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
|
|
-
|
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 - RASThe 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)
|
|
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 MethodWhen 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
|
||
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
|
|
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:
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