Measuring Our Collaborative Progress: Linkage and Retention in Upper Manhattan Denis Nash, PhD,...
description
Transcript of Measuring Our Collaborative Progress: Linkage and Retention in Upper Manhattan Denis Nash, PhD,...
Measuring Our Collaborative Progress: Linkage and Retention in Upper Manhattan
Denis Nash, PhD, MPHDiane Addison, MIA, MPH
CUNY School of Public Health
1
UMRG 3rd Learning Session: July 19th, 2012
Outline of presentation
• Overview of NY Links Collaborative Measures• Analysis of NY Links Collaborative data results
for the Upper Manhattan Regional Group• Using data to measure the effectiveness of
improvement strategies (examples from the field)
2
NY Links Collaborative MeasuresPurpose of NY Links Collaborative Measures: For each team - to assess and support its internal linkage
and retention efforts and bench-mark its performance with providers in the region and
To measure the progress and impact of our collaborative efforts to improve linkage to and retention in HIV clinical care
• Frequency of reporting by sites: Every 2 months– Submission dates: April 2, June 1, August 1, October 1, etc…
3
Upper Manhattan Regional Group (UMRG) site map and types of services provided
Site type N (%)
All UMRG participating sites 25 (100%)
HIV clinical care + HIV testing + supportive services 16 (64%)
HIV testing + supportive services 6 (24%)
HIV clinical care + supportive services (no testing) 1 (4%)
Supportive services only 2 (8%)
Data Source: Baseline site survey, updated: June 15, 2012 4
Map: Blue dots indicate clinical sites and yellow dots indicate supportive service and testing sites.
Measure Agency Type
Linkage All Programs that Conduct HIV Testing
Retention HIV Clinical CareNew Patient Retention
Clinical Engagement Supportive Services & General Medical AssistanceNew Client Clinical
Engagement
Brief Overview of NY Links Collaborative Measures
5
% of UMRG sites reporting on collaborative measures
Data Source: NY Links collaborative measures—through June 2012 submission, updated: July 11, 2012
Measure # of sites that have submitted data
# of sites expected to submit data
% of sites reporting
April 2012 June 2012 April 2012 June 2012
Linkage 17 14 22 77.3% 63.6%
Retention 12 11 17 70.6% 64.7%
New patient retention
12 12 17 70.6% 70.6%
Clinical engagement
9 8 17 52.9% 47.1%
New client clinical engagement
11 10 17 64.7% 58.8%
Total number of participating UMRG sites: 25
Measuring Our Collaborative Progress
Data AnalysisQuestions to Keep In Mind
• What are our major findings . . .– What is the frequency of patients not getting
linked to and/or retained in care? Is this what you would expect?
– What is the impact of not being linked/retained in care?
– What is the feasibility that we can improve this?
UMRG: proportion of newly diagnosed clients linked to care within 30 days
Data Source: NY Links collaborative measures, updated: July 11, 2012 9
82 clients17/22 sites
95 clients14/22 sites
UMRG: proportion of patients retained in care
Data Source: NY Links collaborative measures, updated: July 11, 2012 10
6,633 patients12/17 sites
5,975 patients11/17 sites
UMRG: proportion of new patients retained in care
Data Source: NY Links collaborative measures, updated: July 11, 2012 11
872 patients12/17 sites
757 patients12/17 sites
UMRG: proportion of clients engaged in care
Data Source: NY Links collaborative measures, updated: July 11, 2012 12
815 clients9/17 sites
629 clients8/17 sites
UMRG: proportion of new clients engaged in care
Data Source: NY Links collaborative measures, updated: July 11, 2012 13
Engaged: number of new clients/patients in the reporting period, without a documented HIV clinical care provider or visit upon enrollment, who had at least one medical visit with a provider with prescribing privileges within 30 days of enrollment in the supportive service program
58 clients11/17 sites
64 patients10/17 sites
UMRG summary of collaborative measures: percentage linked, retained or engaged in care, data through June 2012
14
% li
nked
, ret
aine
d, o
r eng
aged
Data Source: NY Links collaborative measures, updated: July 11, 2012
Measuring the effectiveness of interventionsExamples from the field
15
Improving enrollment of HIV patients in care using continuous quality improvement, Uganda
16USAID Health Care improvement Project, “Improving coverage, retention and clinical outcomes of HIV patients in Uganda using continuous quality improvement”, February 2012.
Reducing missed appointments and number of lost clients through community tracking using peer clients and zoning to
ease follow-up: Pallisa District, Eastern Uganda
17
Intervention
Intervention
USAID Health Care improvement Project: “Reducing missed appointments and number of lost clients through community tracking using PHAS and zoning to ease follow-up”, Rotich Leonard, 2012
Comparing outcomes for different linkage and retention strategies in HIV care, example
18
**
**
* p<0.05; adjusted for facility type, urban/rural, year clinic began ART services, and patient loadM Lamb et al. PLoS One, 2012
Patient navigator intervention to increase screening colonoscopy, Lincoln Hospital
19Nash et al. J Urban Health, 2006
20
Patient navigator intervention to increase screening colonoscopy, Lincoln Hospital
Nash et al. J Urban Health, 2006
21
Patient navigator intervention to increase screening colonoscopy, Lincoln Hospital
Nash et al. J Urban Health, 2006
Next Steps• Share data with your team/agency:
- How does your linkage and retention performance compare with the collaborative?- How can/will your improvement efforts contribute the overall collaborative outcome?
• Intervention strategy Tracking Tool– Sign up for check in-call through doodle– Intervention Strategy Tracking Tool completed online
• Next submission due date: August 1, 2012
Thoughts/questions/comments on NY Links Evaluation?
• Denis Nash ([email protected])• Diane Addison ([email protected])
23