Case Management & Performance Monitoring

Reporting

Settlement Agreement Provision

The Commonwealth shall establish a mechanism to monitor compliance with performance standards.


Reports

Case Management Steering Committee Reports

FY21 1st and 2nd Quarter

FY21 3rd and 4th Quarter

FY22 1st and 2nd Quarter

FY22 3rd and 4th Quarter

FY23 1st and 2nd Quarter

FY23 3rd and 4th Quarter

FY24 1st and 2nd Quarter

Regional Support Team Reports

FY21 Q3 RST Report

FY21 Q4 RST Report

FY22 Q1 RST Report

FY22 Q2 RST Report

FY22 Q3 RST Report

FY22 Q4 RST Report

FY23 Q1 RST Report

FY23 Q2 RST Report

FY23 Q3 RST Report

FY23 Q4 RST Report

FY24 Q1 RST Report

FY24 Q2 RST Report

Compliance Indicators

Compliance Indicators III.C.5.d, V.F.4 and V.F.5

III.C.5.d

The Case Management Steering Committee will review and analyze the Case Management data submitted to DBHDS and report on CSB case management performance related to the ten elements and also at the aggregate level to determine the CSB’s overall effectiveness in achieving outcomes for the population they serve (such as employment, self-direction, independent living, keeping children with families). The Case Management Steering Committee will produce a semi-annual report to the DBHDS Quality Improvement Committee on the findings from the data review with recommendations for system improvement. The Case Management Steering Committee’s report will include an analysis of findings and recommendations based on review of the information from case management monitoring/oversight processes including: data from the oversight of the Office of Licensing, DMAS Quality Management Reviews, CSB Case Management Supervisors Quarterly Reviews, DBHDS Quality Management Division quality improvement review processes including the Supervisory retrospective review, Quality Service Reviews, and Performance Contract Indicator data. The Case Management Steering Committee will also make recommendations to the Commissioner for enforcement actions pursuant to the CSB Performance Contract based on negative findings. 

Members of the DBHDS central office Quality Improvement Division will conduct annual retrospective reviews to validate the findings of the CSB case management supervisory reviews and to provide technical assistance to the case managers and supervisors for any needed improvements. A random subsample of the original sample will be drawn each year for this retrospective review. The sample will be stratified so that each CSB is included in the sample. The DBHDS central office Quality Improvement Division’s reviewers will visit each CSB in person and review case management records for the individuals in the sub-sample. They will then complete an electronic form so that agreement between the CSB Case Management Quality Review and the DBHDS Quality Improvement Division record reviews can be measured quantitatively, in addition to providing feedback to the CSB case management supervisors to increase the reliability of future reviews. There will be an ongoing inter-rater reliability process for staff of the DBHDS Quality Improvement Division conducting the retrospective reviews.

V.F.4

The Commonwealth tracks the number, type and frequency of case management contacts. DBHDS will establish a process to review a sample of data each quarter to determine reliability and provide technical assistance to CSBs as needed. 

The data regarding the number, type, and frequency of case management contacts will be included in the Case Management Steering Committee data review. Recommendations to address non-compliance issues with respect to case manager contacts will be provided to the Quality Improvement Committee for consideration of appropriate systemic improvements and to the Commissioner for review of contract performance issues.

V.F.5

The Case Management Steering Committee will establish two indicators in each of the areas of health and safety and community integration associated with selected domains in V.D.3 and based on its review of the data submitted from case management monitoring processes. Data indicates 86% compliance with the four indicators.

|