In attendance: Dayna, Alexia, Mary, Janet, Sandy, Al, Sarah, George
Follow up to confirm tracker content -Implementation Committee
Populate quick stats by end of September-Implementation Committee
Tracking implementation (immediate data collection and moving forward)
Mary sent out an updated version of the tracking tool. Changes include adding definitions, NAVIGATE usage update, and language for April 1st as initial date. Language has been changed because spreadsheet will be used over time.
We see a need for two things, data collection to reflect numbers and something to track progress and is more clinical
The other tracker is more of an implementation tool and includes milestones. PSSP completes this. The agencies have not been populating the first tracker, it’s more for us to understand challenges and what we have done to address them.
Based on a conversation with trainers, we had been working on an interim form similar to a client/contact form. Clinician contact information is not being systematically collected in a formal way by the team. One form can be low level on the ground information for team reviews and a second form can provide a high level overview. Something practical for clinicians will be ideal.
We need to figure out performance indicators. What are the indicators we will be calculating?
We can’t track prescriber piece. We are not sure how to measure that. This is missing in the progress note checklist. Thoughts of incorporating that?
It’s helpful to have a yes or no checklist to answer the question “Did they meet with a psychiatrist?” It’s not possible to have a detailed level of evaluation without paying the prescribers. We can add a simple “Did they complete the side effect questionnaire?” yes or no question. The teams may have a preference of who does that. It doesn’t have to be the prescriber tracking this.
For director roles, do we need information on who is attending the meetings and supervision of team leads?
We should know frequency of team reviews and all the people participating. For team review, are different patients being discussed each time? Is representation from all roles there? How often are they meeting?
It would be helpful to ask sites, what is the source of the data? Is it a manual count? Is it being systematically tracked somewhere?
There may be some administrative burden with monthly submission. A quarterly report would also be acceptable. We can bring this to the sites to get feedback and then make a decision moving forward.
In Niagara, they adapt their progress notes to include NAVIGATE language
Anything in the items for progress notes checklist can be incorporated into their progress notes. This helps for fidelity review. A clinician can go through progress notes and find the various modules.
One option is for clinicians to complete a manual count and send this to their leads. This can be done monthly and site lead can add it in the master. Clinicians need to fill out the modified contact forms to help keep track.
What is the format? George suggested we take a lead from the site of what works for them. Digital format that can be extracted easily. Better to have data (even if incomplete) ready for the fidelity review.
If sites need assistance to pull data from this for reporting, CAMH has people who are able to pull data from excel sheets. We can anonymize the data to accommodate REB needs.
If we get some numbers by the end of September, that is a good start.