Developing a Self-Assessment Toolfor Culturally - Office of Minority ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In an effort to make the telephone interviews with senior executives even more efficient,the final question posed would be to ask the executive to identify or recommend appropriate staffwithin the organization to complete the Staffing and Membership Questionnaires. Because aminimum of 480 Staffing and Membership respondents—i.e., two respondents in each of the 240MCOs—would be asked to complete a questionnaire (that would be much lengthier than thesenior executive’s inquiry), these data would be collected by mail rather than telephone, toreduce costs. Once Staffing and Membership respondents were identified by the seniorexecutive at the conclusion of the telephone interview, a personalized introductory letter wouldbe mailed to invite the individuals to participate in the study, along with a copy of the respectivequestionnaire and instructions for submitting the completed questionnaire.The need for follow-up contacts with respondents who do not submit a completedquestionnaire in a timely manner was considered during the data collection planning phase. Theresearch team, OMH staff, and members of the advisory groups agreed that multiple follow-upcontacts may be required with these respondents. As such, a series of reminders in variousforms were determined necessary for this population. Reminder postcards would bedisseminated to respondents as a first step, and up to three reminder telephone calls perrespondent would become part of the data collection plan.2.1 Conducting the Pilot TestIn order to test the appropriateness of the data collection process and the study instruments,a pilot assessment using cognitive testing techniques was conducted with nine respondentrepresentatives—one Senior Executive respondent, one Staffing respondent, and oneMembership respondent from each of three MCOs—between March and June 2001. The sixStaffing and Membership respondents completed a Pilot Test Response Form (see Appendix F)that was designed to provide respondent feedback on the format and content of the instruments.For each questionnaire component (cover letter; questionnaire cover sheet with instructions; eachof four questionnaire sections), respondents were asked to rate certain elements (e.g., layout anddesign; clarity of instructions; clarity of question wording and response categories; ability toprovide requested information) based on the level of appropriateness for presenting eachcomponent to someone in a similar staff position as themselves.An average rating score was used to summarize the responses to the 4-point scale(i.e., 1 = very appropriate; 2 = appropriate; 3 = somewhat appropriate; and 4 = not appropriate).The three Staffing pilot respondents reported an average rate of 1.4, and the three Membershippilot respondents reported an average rate of 1.3. Moreover, there were no responses of “notappropriate” for any component of the Staffing or Membership Questionnaires. These resultsdemonstrated that for the pilot participants, the Staffing and Membership Questionnaires werefound to be understandable and appropriate—in both format and content—for the purposes ofthis study.By implementing the initial data collection plan with a test group of respondents, severalmethodological changes were found to be necessary. These modifications are described below.COSMOS Corporation, December 2003 G-5
1. Incorporate a confirmation pre-call to MCOs selected in the sample. This adjustmentwas determined necessary in order to verify and update contact information that was outdated.These limitations however, did not influence the selection of the MCOs into the sample; theprocedural modification was needed to expedite the process of reaching the appropriate firstcontact in the particular MCO.During the pilot, certain obstacles were encountered when initial contact letters weremailed to each MCO selected for the sample. For example, the information on the identifiedsenior executive (to whom the initial contact letter was addressed) was found to be outdated intwo ways: either the individual no longer held the position, or the individual was the correctcontact but was located at the health plan headquarters at another address. Also, the telephonenumbers listed in the directory for MCO senior executives were sometimes a general number,not a direct line to the senior executive’s office. In this situation, it became difficult to ascertainwhether the MCO (specifically, the identified senior executive) had received the initial contactletter. Due to these difficulties, the procedure was modified to include a confirmation pre-call tobe made before the initial contact letter was mailed to the selected MCOs.The confirmation pre-call was incorporated to verify the following:! The telephone number is not an automated service, but allows directcontact with the identified senior executive’s office to confirm nameand address;! The identified senior executive still holds the relevant position. Ifnot, the current senior executive is identified; and! The identified senior executive is based in the local office beingcalled. If the identified senior executive is not based out of the localoffice, another senior person or manager is identified to receive theinitial contact letter from OMH.2. Add an Internet web site option for accessing, completing, and submitting follow-upquestionnaires for Staffing and Membership respondents. In the Pilot Test Response Form, mostrespondents (4 out of 6) indicated an option for completing and submitting the (follow-up)questionnaires on the Internet would be useful. Based on these reports, the Staffing andMembership Questionnaires were converted into HTML format so that the web site submissionoption would be available to respondents at the time of data collection.3. Reduce the size of the Staffing and Membership respondent mail packages. During thepilot phase, personnel that were recommended by the senior executive were mailed packagesthat included a copy of the actual survey. As a result of information learned through the pilotregarding the desirability of completing and submitting the questionnaires electronically (eitherby electronic mail or Internet web site), hard copies of the instruments were no longer to beincluded in the initial contact packages for these respondents. Instead, Staffing and Membershiprespondents would receive an introductory letter from OMH and instructions for participating inCOSMOS Corporation, December 2003 G-6
Page 1 and 2:
Developing a Self-Assessment Toolfo
Page 3 and 4:
ContentsChaptersPage1. Introduction
Page 5 and 6:
Chapter 1Introduction
Page 7 and 8:
While many LPHAs currently provide
Page 9 and 10:
LPHAs include: adult and child immu
Page 11 and 12:
Professions Education Partnership A
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 2Methodology for Developing
Page 15 and 16:
Public Health Practice Program Offi
Page 17 and 18:
assess their own beliefs and have k
Page 19 and 20:
communicate with, and clearly under
Page 21 and 22:
2.1.6 Identifying Key Components of
Page 23 and 24:
Given these persistent disparities
Page 25 and 26:
(Exhibit 2-2, Continued)DOMAIN / KE
Page 27 and 28:
limited to the actual clinical enco
Page 29 and 30:
Chapter 3Project Results and Recomm
Page 31 and 32:
local board of health. PEP and PAG
Page 33 and 34:
numerous promising CLAS practices a
Page 35 and 36:
References
Page 37 and 38:
Becker, M.H., and L.A. Maiman, “S
Page 39 and 40:
Frye, B., “Health Care Decision M
Page 41 and 42:
Marin, G., “Defining Culturally A
Page 43 and 44:
Perkins, Jane, “Overcoming Langua
Page 45 and 46:
U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Censu
Page 47 and 48:
Appendix AMembership Lists of the P
Page 49 and 50:
Appendix A-1Developing a Self-Asses
Page 51 and 52:
Appendix A-2Developing a Self-Asses
Page 53 and 54:
Appendix B-1Overview of Eight CLAS
Page 55 and 56:
Domain 3: Culturally Inclusive Heal
Page 57 and 58:
understanding of diversity issues i
Page 59 and 60:
Appendix B-2Conceptual Framework fo
Page 61 and 62:
Appendix CLPHA Director or Designee
Page 63 and 64:
Pre-Interview Script for LPHA Direc
Page 65 and 66: 3b. Which of the following are refl
Page 67 and 68: 6. Does your agency have a formal p
Page 69 and 70: 10. Which of the following describe
Page 71 and 72: Post-Interview Script for LPHA Dire
Page 73 and 74: Appendix DStaffing Questionnaire
Page 75 and 76: A. QUALITY MONITORING AND IMPROVEME
Page 77 and 78: B. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (
Page 79 and 80: 7. Please indicate, if you know, th
Page 81 and 82: 1c. Please indicate for which categ
Page 83 and 84: 6. Please indicate for which catego
Page 85 and 86: 10. Which of the following topical
Page 87 and 88: 17. Which of the following benefits
Page 89 and 90: 4. Which of the following strategie
Page 91 and 92: Appendix EClient Services Questionn
Page 93 and 94: A. QUALITY MONITORING AND IMPROVEME
Page 95 and 96: 6b.Which of the following community
Page 97 and 98: 3. Please report or estimate what p
Page 99 and 100: 3. Which of the following practices
Page 101 and 102: Oral Interpretation Services10. Whi
Page 103 and 104: 16. At which of the following key e
Page 105 and 106: 3. Which of the following kinds of
Page 107 and 108: Appendix FPilot Test Response Form
Page 109 and 110: RESPONDENT EVALUATIONOF THE QUESTIO
Page 111 and 112: Appendix GCLAS in MCOs Study Data C
Page 113 and 114: position, as titles will likely var
Page 115: complex and uncertain at the time t
Page 119 and 120: Exhibit 2DATA COLLECTION PROCESSSen
show all

Developing a Self-Assessment Toolfor Culturally - Office of Minority ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?