ACHA Benchmarking Committee

Benchmarking Committee

ACHA Benchmarking

Committee Carlo Ciotoli, MD and Cheryl Flynn, MD, MS, MA

Co-Chairs June 2, 2017


Agenda §  Background

– Board Charge – Approach

§  Benchmarking surveys – Clinical –  Staffing and Salary – Utilization

§  Future action areas – KPIs – Data Warehouse

§  Q and A


Charge from Board

§  Continue to implement the Clinical Benchmarking program. –  Select the modules & determine yearly schedule for the

modules –  Consult with staff to recommend participation pricing –  Determine the need for any additional modules to be

developed §  Advance the Utilization Survey further

–  Revise the Utilization Survey for future launch in Fall of 2016 –  Conduct a survey to determine from the membership what

utilization data would be beneficial §  Work with staff to update Benchmarking webpage outlining:

–  The purpose of Benchmarking –  The value of benchmarking to the institution –  List of projects and schedule for launch


Why Benchmark ? §  It is a way of using data to compare key

performance measures with those of similar organizations and/or against nationally recognized best practices, targets, or goals.

§  Ultimately, however, the goal of benchmarking is to use the data derived from benchmarking to initiate and sustain performance improvement over time.

§  Benchmarking is a critical component of meeting accreditation standards


Co-Chairs’ Goals for the Committee

§  Improving data integrity §  Facilitating data collection/survey

completion §  Increasing participation in surveys §  Greater participation/involvement of

the committee members over the course of the year

§  Coordination with other groups within ACHA


Status of Surveys


Selecting Clinical Benchmarks

§  Conditions commonly seen in college health

§  Strong evidence to support management &/or outside quality measures

§  Breadth of topics that span the spectrum

of college health clinical services


Clinical Benchmarks

Safety, Screening & Preven1on

Allergy documenta0on Flu vaccine Tobacco use Depression screening Chlamydia tes0ng Cervical Cancer screening

Acute Care

Pharyngi0s Ankle injury Acute bronchi0s

Chronic Care

Asthma Depression


Clinical Benchmarks

Sexual Health

Chlamydia testing Cervical Cancer screening

Additional items TBD

Acute Care

Pharyngitis Ankle injury

Acute bronchitis

Chronic Care

Asthma Depression

Screening & Prevention

Allergy documentation Flu vaccine

Tobacco use Depression screening


Clinical Benchmarking Survey

Acute Care

Pharyngitis Ankle injury

Acute bronchitis

Screening & Prevention

Allergy documentation Flu vaccine

Tobacco use Depression screening

Plan to administer in June 2017


Salary and Staffing

•  Administered from November 2015-February 2016.

•  There were 167 respondents.

•  Modifications included adding a Sexual Violence/Assault Prevention Coordinator position.


ACHA Salary Survey 2016 Position Title

2016 ACHA Survey Mean Salary ($)

Dietician/Nutritionist 64,747

Health Educator 44,484

LPN 39,286

Medical Assistant 34,417

Nurse Practitioner** 84,600

Physical Therapist 77,750

Physician, FP 155,083

Physician, Internist 155,083

Psychiatrist 187,832

Psychologist 80,142


Salaries: Comparative Ratios

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

LPN RN Physician, FP Physician, Internist

Nurse Prac11oner**

Medical Assistant Physical Therapist

Health Educator Bachelors

Die1cians/Nutri1onists

Psychiatrist Psychologist

2006 2016


2017 Utilization Survey

Preliminary results


Past Utilization Surveys, changes §  Administered through benchmarking 2006,

and again 2009 §  Challenges in interpretation (pre)existed §  Mild modifications for the 2016-7 survey

–  Varying positions among benchmarking team: •  Super-simplified camp vs even-more-detailed camp •  Goal was to not limit participation with complexity and

still get some depth of information to compare across institutions and outside college health

–  Most questions unchanged •  Kept RVU question though source of variation in past •  Added detail on types of providers (training & “service”) •  Separated out clinical FTE from overall FTE


Demographics: 235 participating schools

§  86.8% ACHA institutional member

§  59.1% Public schools –  >90% bachelors or higher

§  All regional affiliates represented –  Mid-Atlantic, Pacific, Southern

§  Majority of schools suburban location –  Spanned rural to large urban

§  Student enrollment –  more than 65 schools smaller

than 5K –  ~100 schools 15K or larger


Health related demographics §  53 % Health Services are accredited

–  45% AAAHC, 5% Joint Commission, ~3% other

§  44% require students to carry health insurance –  Over the last 3 surveys, typically 40/60 split

§  58% of schools have funding from health fee –  Trending upward: 53% (2006), 57% (2010)

§  Proportion of revenue from “fee for service” –  48% schools get less than 10% funding from fee

for service; stable

§  Small increase in % of schools that serve faculty & staff –  21% (2006)à23% (2010)à25% (2017)


Programs/services that report to SHS

Program/Service 2006 2010 2017

Counseling & Psychiatry 26.6% 33.1% 39.6%

Health Promo0on 66.5% 69.8% 62.6%

SH Insurance 60.5% 58.1% 41.3%

Disability Services 4.7% 8.7% 7.2%

Recrea0onal Services 1.4% 1.2% 2.1%


SHS Attributes – Services 2017 Medical Services Allied Services

Primary Care 94.4% Pharmacy Rx dispensary

35.8% 44.6%

Urgent Care 75.3% Lab in-house 73.9% GYN 79.6% Radiology 33.5% Nutrition 50.2% Allergy 67.5%

Sports Medicine Ortho PT

33.3% 14.5% 16.7%

Travel Clinic 56.6%

Dermatology 15.0% SHIP Insurance compliance

43.5% 74.8%

Optometry 3.2% Dental 8.1%


Student Health Clinical Staffing

Total FTE Total clinical

FTE

Total clinical FTE per 1000

students

Primary care: MDs + NPs + PAs

N=123 634.1

N=114 616.2

.18

GYN specialty MD + NP + PA

N=44 85.1

N=38 61.2

.02

Sports med, ortho specialty MD + NP + PA

N=33 33.4

N=32 36.4

.01

Nursing: RN, LPN

N=54 148.2

N=42 139.9

.04

Nursing: MAs or LNAs

N=70 344.2

N=66 347.1

.10

Nutrition: RDs

N=50 34.9

N=48 38.7

.01


Counseling Centers Clinical Staffing

Total FTE Total clinical FTE

Total clinical FTE per 1000

students

CAPS Mental Health Prescribers: MDs + NPs or PAs

N=39 53.9

N=35 46.1

.01

Mental Health Counselors: Doctorate & Master’s level mental health providers

N=59 511.3

N=51 408.2

.12

Specific AOD counselors

No data submitted


Clinical Visits

Medical Clinic §  Mean visits per student:

1.5 –  N = 200 (schools

responding) –  Range 0.05 to 8.78

Counseling Center

§  Mean visits per student 0.45 –  N = 80 (schools

responding) –  Range 0.02 to 2.16


Limitations §  Preliminary analysis §  No subanalysis to help clarify findings, offer

additional interpretation –  Characteristics of SHS structure and services

offered influence utilization results –  Public vs private, size of school, scope of services

offered etc. §  Selective responses, likely variance in

interpretation of questions –  Though 235 schools participated, FTE questions

(like RVU questions) answered by much smaller subset

–  Clinical FTE accounted for face to face appt time; clinical FTE larger than FTE of provider pool


Future Action Areas

Key Performance Indicators Data Warehouse


What the heck is a KPI? §  A quantifiable measure used to evaluate the

success of an organization, employee, etc., in meeting objectives for performance.

§  An evaluation of the success of an organization in achieving some operational goal or making progress towards a strategic goal as measured by a particular activity in which it engages

§  A type of performance metric that helps you understand how your organization or department is performing. A good KPI should act as a compass, helping you and your team understand whether you’re taking the right path toward your strategic goals.


Characteristics of a “good” KPI §  Relevant to the organization and its stakeholders

–  Considers the mission; useful in QI & decision-making –  Understandable to all, communicates a clear

message of quality §  Scientifically sound, Evidence-based

–  Focus on student outcomes, not service volume; final outcomes over intermediate outcomes

–  Choose process measures that have proven link with outcome measures

–  Metric is clearly defined; implementation will produce consistent (reliable) and accurate (valid) across sites

§  Feasible –  Data exists, is readily available (or can be made so)

without undue burden


An example of a KPI’s evolution: depression


KPI example: depression screening §  Relevance

–  Goal health, wellbeing and success of students –  Prevalence of depression in college age students ~15% –  Negatively impacts academic functioning (NCHA) and retention

(Healthy Minds)

§  Evidence-based –  Pre-validated tools (ie PHQ9)

•  measure symptoms and functioning •  Screening and surveillance

–  USPSTF supports screening when intervention possible

§  Feasible –  NCDP project helped create infrastructure –  “electronic” surveys in EHRs, run reports to measure screening

rates and clinical outcomes –  Potential to link clinical outcomes to GPA, retention measures


KPIs and ACHA Benchmarking

§  Clinical services, quality of care –  Medical services –  Mental health services –  Public health –  Ancillary services

§  Administrative services –  Facilities –  Staffing –  Funding, insurance –  Compliance

https://www.acha.org/ACHA/Resources/Framework_for_College_Health.aspx


ACHA Data Warehouse Project


Project Goals: Improve the Health & Wellness of College Students

§  Information ACHA needs to achieve our organizational goals in Advocacy, Education, and Research

§  Information college health professionals need to advance the health of college students at their institution

§  Information policy makers need to make informed decisions about college student health “The recognized voice of expertise in college health”


CCHN Value Proposition: 6 Primary Benefits

www.acha.org

1

2

3

4

5

6 Foster Inter-‐University Collabora1on

Foster Academic Success

Reduce Health Inequity

Improve Quality Outcomes

Improve Opera1onal Efficiency

BeYer Inform Policy Makers

Build a greater understanding of health inequity na1onwide on college campuses and define strategies to improve

1

Enhance understanding of health factors and their correla1on to student achievement (e.g. GPA and reten1on rates)

2

Develop a series of data-‐driven interven1ons that can be shared with universi1es in order to improve outcomes

3

Enhance and tailor college health and wellness benchmarking

4

Develop a composite view of cross-‐campus health delivery and u1liza1on. Improve colleges and universi1es ability to inform and influence na1onal healthcare policy. Build a na1onal health and wellness surveillance network across universi1es

5

Enhance student health outcomes through peer learning

6


Steering CommitteeACHA ED

Team and SubTeam ChairsSVO

Exec. Committee Liaison

Board of Directors

Administrative Team

Ralph Manchester

Population Health Team

Susan Hochman

Clinical Team Chris Holstege

Technical Team Laura Barnes

Medical Care Subteam

Giang Nguyen

Mental Health Subteam

David Reetz


Epidemiology Subteam

Craig Roberts

IT Subteam

Advisory Board


Questions or Comments


Additional Feedback

Carlo Ciotoli [email protected] Cheryl Flynn [email protected]


Utilization •  Opened for participation on November 18th.

Planned close date of December 23rd. •  Only minor modifications made to the

organization of the survey with several minor updates made to content.

•  Additional open-ended question added to solicit any additional information that should be included in future surveys.

•  Consideration for shorter “EZ survey” to encourage participation


Salaries: Comparative Ratios

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

LPN Physician, FP Nurse Prac00oner**

Physical Therapist

Die0cians/ Nutri0onists

Psychologist

2006 2016


Discussion Questions

§  How do we increase participation? §  How should the clinical benchmarking

modules be administered?

§  What pricing model should be implemented ?


End of Term Recommendations 1.  Benchmark ACHA’s benchmarking processes

and resources with other higher education and healthcare professional associations.

2.  Survey Fees/Business Model 3.  Survey about utilization survey 4.  Create an internal process for approving new

survey development, revisions to existing surveys, and the administration of all surveys

5.  New surveys for consideration 6.  Administer clinical benchmarks in 3 “bundles 7.  Add resources on ACHA website about benefits

of participation, how schools can use their data, and education about what benchmarking is and is not


Additional Feedback

§  Email us:

Carlo Ciotoli [email protected] Cheryl Flynn [email protected]


Key Performance Indicators


What the heck is a KPI? §  A quantifiable measure used to evaluate the

success of an organization, employee, etc., in meeting objectives for performance.

§  An evaluation of the success of an organization in achieving some operational goal or making progress towards a strategic goal as measured by a particular activity in which it engages

§  A type of performance metric that helps you understand how your organization or department is performing. A good KPI should act as a compass, helping you and your team understand whether you’re taking the right path toward your strategic goals.


Characteristics of a “good” KPI §  Relevant to the organization and its stakeholders

–  Considers the mission; useful in QI & decision-making –  Understandable to all, communicates a clear

message of quality §  Scientifically sound, Evidence-based

–  Focus on student outcomes, not service volume; final outcomes over intermediate outcomes

–  Choose process measures that have proven link with outcome measures

–  Metric is clearly defined; implementation will produce consistent (reliable) and accurate (valid) across sites

§  Feasible –  Data exists, is readily available (or can be made so)

without undue burden


An example of a KPI’s evolution: depression


KPI example: depression screening §  Relevance

–  Goal health, wellbeing and success of students –  Prevalence of depression in college age students ~15% –  Negatively impacts academic functioning (NCHA) and retention

(Healthy Minds)

§  Evidence-based –  Pre-validated tools (ie PHQ9)

•  measure symptoms and functioning •  Screening and surveillance

–  USPSTF supports screening when intervention possible

§  Feasible –  NCDP project helped create infrastructure –  “electronic” surveys in EHRs, run reports to measure screening

rates and clinical outcomes –  Potential to link clinical outcomes to GPA, retention measures


KPIs and ACHA Benchmarking

§  Clinical services, quality of care –  Medical services –  Mental health services –  Public health –  Ancillary services

§  Administrative services –  Facilities –  Staffing –  Funding, insurance –  Compliance

https://www.acha.org/ACHA/Resources/Framework_for_College_Health.aspx


Clinical Benchmarks

Safety, screening & preven1on:

Allergy documenta0on Flu vaccine Tobacco use Depression screening Chlamydia tes0ng Cervical Cancer screening

Acute care:

Pharyngi0s Ankle injury Acute bronchi0s

Chronic care:

Asthma Depression


Team Updates

§  Administration –  Institutional profile (current ACHA profile, other attributes) –  Benchmarks (facilities, staffing, structure – admin, programs/services scope)

–  Insurance claim data §  Clinical

–  Building on College Health Surveillance Network –  Incidence, Prevalence, Quality, Utilization of Clinical Outcomes –  Examples: ICD-10,CPT, Lab Positivity, Rx meds/immunizations,,PHQ-9 and other

screenings (AUDIT, smoking, BMI)

§  Population –  NCHA Survey Data –  Policies and Environmental Factors

§  Technical –  Sampling (students, schools) methodology –  Technical System Specifications

§  Benchmarking Committee §  ACHA National Office

–  Fundraising and Business Plan –  Partnerships with vendors (HER) and other stakeholder –  Project Manager


Tiered Pricing Model

PRICINGCHARACTERISTICS:

•  Two primary levels of func0onality:

•  Starter: included with all ins0tu0onal memberships. Will allow for basic access to ins0tu0onal reports and compara0ve reports for your ins0tu0on

•  Advanced analy0cs: an addi0onal annual fee will allow access to the ability to create custom reports

•  Advanced analy0cs pricing will be 0ered for ins0tu0onal members versus non-‐members

•  Market knowledge license will be reserved for non-‐colleges that are interested in using CCHN for market research


Primary Initial Customers Potential initial customers include public and private universities in the United States and Canadian Provinces.


Proposed Timeline

Spring 2017 §  Initial TF Meeting with subsequent

content development §  Stakeholder engagement-vendors §  Submitted Office of Minority

Health Grant §  Business and Communications

plan development §  Benchmarking with other

associations §  Hire Project Manager

Annual Meeting in Austin §  Leadership session/section lunch

meetings §  Collect interest and capacity to

participate §  Discuss costs Summer, 2017 §  Task Force In person meeting in

late June

Fall, 2017 •  Vendor RFP •  Engage Partner organiza0ons: NASPA, Jed, AAU, ACE

January 2018 •  Administra0ve data collec0on launch

July, 2018 •  Transi0on CHSN to ACHA for pilot

July, 2019 •  Broader launch


Agenda

1.  Background 2.  Status of Surveys 3.  Data Warehouse 4.  January Benchmarking Meeting


Thank You


Overall Project Lead: Sarah Van Orman, MD, MMM University of Wisconsin-‐Madison Administra1ve Team: Ralph Manchester, MD University of Rochester Clinical Team: Chris Holstege, MD University of Virginia Medical Sub-‐Team: Giang Nguyen, MD, MPH University of Pennsylvania Mental Health Sub-‐Team: David Reetz, PhD Rochester Ins1tute of Technology

Popula1on Health Team: Susan Hochman, MPH University of Texas at Aus1n Technical Team: Laura Barnes, PhD University of Virginia Epidemiology Sub-‐team: Craig Roberts, MS, PA-‐C University of Wisconsin-‐Madison

Ins1tu1ons / Organiza1ons American University University of California Irvine Arizona State University University of California Los Angeles Atlan0c Cape Community College University of California Merced Bentley University University of California Riverside Case Western Reserve University University of California San Diego Columbia University University of California San Francisco

Colorado State University University of California Santa Barbara

Cornell University University of California Santa Cruz CUNY Central Office University of Central Florida East Carolina University University of Colorado, Boulder

Emory University University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

Florida State University University of Florida Gonzaga University University of Kentucky Harvard University University of Minnesota Humboldt State University University of Missouri Indiana University University of Nebraska Iowa State University University of Nevada, Las Vegas Louisiana State University University of New Mexico

Minnesota Department of Health University of North Carolina at Greensboro

New York University University of North Carolina, Charlofe

North Carolina State University University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

Northwestern University University of Notre Dame Ohio State University University of Oregon Pennsylvania State University University of Pennsylvania Rensselaer Polytechnic Ins0tute University of Richmond Rochester Ins0tute of Technology University of Rochester Rutgers New Jersey Medical School University of South Carolina School of the Art Ins0tute of Chicago University of Texas, Aus0n St. John's University University of the Virgin Islands Texas A&M University University of Vermont Tulane University University of Virginia University of Alabama-‐ Birmingham University of Wisconsin-‐Madison University of Arkansas Utah State University University of California Berkeley Washington University in St Louis University of California Davis Yale University

* 35 ins(tu(ons are exis(ng CHSN par(cipants

Over 70 Supporting Universities


§  Institution Generated: –  Clinical coding data (ICD-10, CPT) –  Other clinical data: CCAPS, lab positivity

PHQ-9Student demographic data –  Claims data –  Administrative benchmarks –  Health and environmental factors

§  ACHA Generated: –  Population Surveys: NCHA –  Clinical Benchmarks –  Institutional Profile Data

§  Government Generated: –  IPEDS

CCHN Breaks Down Data Silos


Member Update

May, 2017


Current State Challenges

Policy makers and funders lack accurate data regarding the physical and mental health of college students na0onwide

INFORM

While we know there is a link between health and student success, the current data is insufficient. It is difficult to quan0fy across data sets.

LINK

We know that health inequity exists on college campuses but have no way to udnerstand the scale or ways to measure interven0on.

EQUALIZE

The lack of health and wellness data na0onwide hamstrings ins0tu0ons from collabora0ve learning and benchmarking quality outcomes and opera0ons.

COLLABORATE


Benchmarking Committee Meeting

§  January 13-14, 2017 §  New York City (hosted by NYU) §  Limited funding through ACHA to

cover costs for committee members who would like to attend

§  Tentative agenda/recommended agenda items?


Clinical Benchmarking •  Working towards a 2017 spring semester

administration. •  Pending issues include:

•  resolving potential scoring discrepancy with cervical cancer screening questions;

•  how the multiple modules may be administered; •  Desire/need for developing questions for

additional topics; •  finalizing a pricing structure for the survey.


Charge from Board The current charge of the Benchmarking Advisory Committee is to: §  Continue the development and implementation of Part II of the Clinical

Benchmark Pilot 3. –  Women’s Health –  Depression Treatment

§  Finalize any suggested changes and scoring to clinical Benchmarking Pilot 3. §  Consider inclusion of additional modules for the Clinical Benchmark Project

(for example, possibilities mentioned at the Benchmarking Session during the 2014 Annual Meeting):

–  Low back pain management –  BMI measurement –  Hypertension diagnosis and control –  ADD treatment and follow-up

§  Develop (in conjunction with ACHA staff) a long term plan for the Clinical Benchmarking Project to determine:

–  Frequency (annually or biannually) –  Participation fee (for staff-time support) –  Dissemination of resultant data (membership benefit or public domain)

§  Revise and implement a Utilization Survey.


Why Clinical Benchmarking?

§  Better understand the quality of care provided at college health facilities –  Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for conditions

common in the college population

§  For ACHA and survey participants to compare quality –  Within & between college health institutions –  Against community and national standards.

§  Identify areas for potential ACHA initiatives related to quality of care –  Share best practices –  Educational, research opportunities –  Advocacy


Evolution of Clinical Benchmarking surveys

Year Par1cipants Topics

Pilot 1 2009 11 Asthma, Allergies, Ankle, Chlamydia screening, Flu vaccine, Pharyngi0s

Pilot 2 2010-‐2011 14 Above plus: Bronchi0s, Depression management, Depression screening, Pap screening, Tobacco use screening


Changes made for Pilot #3 §  Ease of data entry

–  Surveys can be completed without having to know all the demographic information by different staff members

–  Created off-line collection tools

§  Decrease the time to complete the survey –  Split the study into two parts with separate releases

§  Better assistance when completing the survey –  Created online PowerPoint video to watch prior to starting. –  Easier access to answers on measures and filling out the

survey

§  Data reliability –  Increase member participation –  Measurements comparable to national data sets (ie HEDIS)


Evolution of Clinical Benchmarking surveys

Year Par1cipants Topics

Pilot 1 2009 11 Asthma, Allergies, Ankle, Chlamydia screening, Flu vaccine, Pharyngi0s

Pilot 2 2010-‐2011 14 Above plus: Bronchi0s, Depression management, Depression screening, Pap screening, Tobacco use screening

Pilot 3-‐Part 1 2014 81 Asthma, Allergies, Ankle, Bronchi1s, Flu vaccine, Pharyngi1s, Depression screening, Tobacco use screening

Pilot 3-‐Part 2 2015 81 Chlamydia screening, Depression management, Pap screening


Pilot 3


Pilot 3: phase 1 (presented at last year’s mtg)

Clinical topic ACHA average compliance (%)

Acute Care Pharyngi0s non-‐tes0ng for Centor criteria 0 or 1 34 Avoiding abx in acute bronchi0s 57 Ofawa ankle rules to det’n need of xray 60 Chronic Care Asthma monitoring (wrifen ac0on plan) 27 Asthma treatment (use of prophylaxis inhalers) 85 Screening, Preven0on, & Safety Tobacco use and recommenda0ons 52 Medica0on and material allergies 92 Depression screening 53 Flu vaccine 38


10 12%

16 20%

24 30%

31 38% 1K-‐5K

5K-‐10K 10-‐20K over 20K

Pilot 3: phase 2 Size of Institution

N=81 Pilot 3 Pt 2


3 3%

19 23%

9 11%

12 14%

18 22%

8 10%

6 7%

8 10% New England CT ME MA NH RI

VT

Mid East DE DC MD NJ NY PA

Great Lakes IL IN MI OH WI

Plains IA KS MN MO NE ND SD

Southeast AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC SC TN VA WV

Southwest AZ NM OK TX

Rocky Mountains CO ID MT UT WY

Far West AK CA HI NV OR WA

Pilot 3: phase 2 School Location

N=81 Pilot 3 Pt 2


56 69%

25 31%

Public

Private Not for Profit

Pilot 3: phase 2 Public/Private Non Profit

N=81 Pilot 3 Pt 2


Pilot 3: phase 2 Results

Clinical topic ACHA average compliance

(%) Women’s Health Chlamydia screening in sexually ac0ve women < 26 58 Adherence to pap guidelines women <30 28 Mental Health Depression management: use of standardized tools for surveillance; adjus0ng tx based on response

(ini0al assessment) 54 (1 mo f/u) 35 (2 mo f/u) 34 (overall) 28


Pilot 3: phase 2 Feedback

§  Clarity in the instructions §  Clarity on the worksheets §  Clarity on whether to complete certain

sections if this service is not performed


I intend, therefore I do…

A Ques1on of Philosophy


Clinical Benchmarking Proposed Future Administration

§  To be administered as “bundles” – Safety and prevention – Acute care – Chronic Care

§  You can select which bundles to participate in but you must complete all topics in the bundle

§  Timing of administration


Utilization Survey

§  Last administered 2010 §  Scope of Services §  Insurance and Funding §  Staffing and Utilization

– Visits/student – Visits/FTE

§  Appointment length


Challenges


Utilization Survey

§  What are the goals of the survey ? §  What decisions with this data help

inform?


Flash Poll


ACHA Benchmarking Committee Surveys

Survey Name Frequency Last Completed

Next Scheduled

Facili0es Every 5 yrs 2008 TBD U0liza0on Every 3 yrs 2010 2015 Staffing/Salary Every 5 yrs 2010 2015 Pa0ent Sa0sfac0on

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

New/Ad hoc Surveys

TBD TBD TBD


Other Benchmarking Surveys §  Existing

–  Utilization –  Facilities –  Staffing and Salary –  Patient Satisfaction

§  Potential/Future –  Needs of subpopulations

•  Veternas •  First Generation

–  “Specialty Services” (Sports Medicine, Travel) –  Use of Electronic Health Records –  Insurance/Impact of Affordable Care Act –  Financing Models/Billing Practices


Why Benchmark ? §  It is a way of using data to compare key

performance measures with those of similar organizations and/or against nationally-recognized best practices, targets, or goals.

§  Ultimately, however, the goal of benchmarking is to use the data derived from benchmarking to initiate and sustain performance improvement over time.

§  Benchmarking is a critical component of meeting accreditation standards


ACHA Benchmarking Committee

June 2017

ACHA Benchmarking Committee

Documents

Transcript of ACHA Benchmarking Committee