San San Fr Francisc ancisco Eligible Eligible Met Metropol - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
san san fr francisc ancisco eligible eligible met
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

San San Fr Francisc ancisco Eligible Eligible Met Metropol - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jul 06, 2023 256 likes •502 views

San San Fr Francisc ancisco Eligible Eligible Met Metropol opolitan an Ar Area ea 2017 2017 Quality uality Manag Managemen ement Pr Program & Perf rform ormance ance Measur Measures es Pre Presentat tation SAN SAN FRANC FRANCISC

slide-1
SLIDE 1

San San Fr Francisc ancisco Eligible Eligible Met Metropol

  • politan

an Ar Area ea 2017 2017 Quality uality Manag Managemen ement Pr Program & Perf rform

  • rmance

ance Measur Measures es Pre Presentat tation

SAN SAN FRANC FRANCISC SCO HIV HIV COMMUNI MMUNITY TY PLANN PLANNING NG CO COUNCIL

P R E PA R E D BY: D E D E A N G O O G O O D WI N , A D A D M I N M I N I S T R A S T R ATO R , R , S F D P S F D P H ‐ H I V H I V H E H E A L A LT H T H S E R S E RV I C I C ES J O J O H N AY AY N S L E Y, Q U Q UA L I T Y A L I T Y M A M A N A G E M E N T G E M E N T CO O R D O O R D I N ATO R , R , S F D P S F D P H ‐ H I V H I V H E H E A L A LT H T H S E R S E RV I C I C ES A D D I T I O N A L D ATA P R E PA R AT I O N BY: K E V I K E V I N L E E , L E E , P L A N N E R / E V A N N E R / E VA L A LUATO R , R , M A M A R I N D H D H & H S – H – H I V/A I D S S E R S E RV I C I C ES M A M AT T G E L G E LT M A K E K E R , R , S T D S T D / H I V H I V P R P R O G R A R A M S E S E C T I O C T I O N , S A N S A N M A M AT EO H E H E A L A LT H T H S E R S E RV I C I C ES R E V I E W E D BY: B I L L B I L L B L B LU M , U M , D I R D I R EC TO R O R , S F D P S F D P H ‐ H I H I V H E H E A L A LT H T H S E R S E RV I C I C ES S F H S F H C P C S T E E R I N G S T E E R I N G CO M M I M M I T T E E

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Presen esentation tion Outline tline

I. Purpose, Goals, & Activities

  • II. Considerations & Measures
  • III. Data Overview
  • IV. Analysis
  • V. Questions & Feedback

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Quality ality Ma Managemen nagement Pu Purpose

  • Information
  • Reporting
  • Evaluation

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Quality ality Ma Managemen nagement Pr Program ‐ Goals Goals

  • Analyze HRSA HAB Clinical indicators across all three

counties.

  • Utilize data to improve quality of care and health
  • utcomes.
  • Report to State, Federal, and City funders on key

indicators.

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

2017 2017 QM QM Activities Activities

  • Increased integration with the eClinicalWorks electronic medical

record

  • State Office of AIDS ARIES HAB QM report improvements
  • Increased frequency of uploads into ARIES
  • Food and Nutrition Services linkage and retention QM program

implemented

  • Multiple trainings on a variety of topics

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Quality ality Assur Assurance nce Da Data Con Consider ideratio ions

Data Perspective and Considerations

  • This presentation uses the ARIES database, which is

programmed to comply with all State and Federal grant reporting requirements.

  • This presentation is designed to address CQI thresholds not to

compare models of care.

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Quality ality Assur Assurance nce Da Data Pa Para rameters rs

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Quality ality Assur Assurance nce Da Data Pa Para rameters rs

16,000 7,000 3,000 Total San Francisco Total HHS ARIES Primary Care 2017 DATA

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Quality ality Assur Assurance nce Pe Performance Me Meas asur ures es

  • Retention in Care
  • % of clients with a medical visit in the first half of the year

and the second half of the year

  • ART Prescription
  • % of clients with HIV/AIDS who are prescribed ART.
  • Viral Load Suppression
  • % of patients with a viral load test result of <200.

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Quality Assurance – Retention in Care 2017

Marin County San Francisco County San Mateo County SF EMA UDC 130 3195 334 3659 ART 86.9% 84.4% 80.5% 84.1% Local Threshold 85% 85% 85% 85% National Threshold 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Quality Assurance – ART Prescription 2017

Marin County San Francisco County San Mateo County SF EMA UDC 143 2327 398 2868 ART 94.4% 85.0% 94.5% 86.8% Local Threshold 85% 85% 85% 85% National Threshold 80% 80% 80% 80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Quality Assurance – Viral Load Suppression 2017

Marin County San Francisco County San Mateo County SF EMA UDC 143 3681 398 4222 Viral Load Suppression 89.5% 78.8% 88.7% 80.1% Local & National Threshold 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

SF SF EM EMA QA QA – C – County Pe Performance Summa mmary 2017 2017

Medical Visits ART Prescription Viral Load Suppression Marin County 86.9% 94.4% 89.5% San Francisco County 84.4% 85.0% 78.8% San Mateo County 80.5% 94.5% 88.7% SF EMA 84.1% 86.8% 80.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Vi Viral Load Load Suppr Suppressi ession

  • n by

by Demogr Demographi aphic – 0 – 0%‐100% 100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Transgender MTF 75.9% 77.4% 79.1% 78.9% 80.9% 81.2% 81.2% 79.2% Asian & Pacific Islander 81.9% 86.9% 87.4% 86.5% 86.5% 89.1% 89.3% 89.0% Black & African American 72.2% 74.8% 75.6% 75.7% 76.2% 77.1% 78.1% 78.4% Hispanic & Latino/a 80.7% 81.6% 82.0% 83.0% 83.6% 85.7% 84.5% 84.4% White 76.1% 77.1% 77.9% 78.5% 80.1% 81.2% 81.0% 80.7% All 76.6% 78.2% 78.8% 79.3% 80.4% 81.8% 81.7% 81.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Vi Viral Load Load Suppr Suppressi ession

  • n by

by Demogr Demographi aphic – 7 – 70%‐90% 90%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Transgender MTF 75.9% 77.4% 79.1% 78.9% 80.9% 81.2% 81.2% 79.2% Asian & Pacific Islander 81.9% 86.9% 87.4% 86.5% 86.5% 89.1% 89.3% 89.0% Black & African American 72.2% 74.8% 75.6% 75.7% 76.2% 77.1% 78.1% 78.4% Hispanic & Latino/a 80.7% 81.6% 82.0% 83.0% 83.6% 85.7% 84.5% 84.4% White 76.1% 77.1% 77.9% 78.5% 80.1% 81.2% 81.0% 80.7% All 76.6% 78.2% 78.8% 79.3% 80.4% 81.8% 81.7% 81.7%

70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90%

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Bl Black ack Health Health Cen Center ers of

  • f Ex

Excelle llence 2010 2010 ‐ 17 17

N/A 2011 (n=167) 2012 (n=197) 2013 (n=198) 2014 (n=193) 2015 (n=180) 2016 (n=225) 2017 (n=204) Viral Load Supression 67.1% 71.1% 73.7% 75.6% 74.4% 74.2% 66.2% Retention in Care 79.3% 74.0% 79.6% 79.6% 85.0% 79.9% ART Prescription 91.6% 95.9% 93.9% 85.5% 86.7% 78.2% 95.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

CCHAM CCHAMP Cen Center ers of

  • f Ex

Excelle llence 2010 2010 ‐ 17 17

2010 (n=627) 2011 (n=624) 2012 (n=701) 2013 (n=739) 2014 (n=612) 2015 (n=822) 2016 (n=1218) 2017 (n=906) Viral Load Supression 65.1% 70.8% 71.6% 70.6% 65.7% 78.1% 81.0% 77.3% Retention in Care 84.1% 83.0% 76.3% 70.8% 70.2% 85.3% 82.2% 80.2% ART Prescription 93.1% 95.0% 96.0% 93.4% 90.5% 86.0% 78.5% 95.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Mi Mission Cen Center er of

  • f Ex

Excelle llence 2010 2010 ‐ 17 17

2010 (n=221) 2011 (n=274) 2012 (n=306) 2013 (n=318) 2014 (n=347) 2015 (n=298) 2016 (n=312) 2017 (n=298) Viral Load Supression 75.1% 80.3% 85.3% 76.7% 79.3% 89.6% 89.4% 90.3% Retention In Care 86.4% 90.0% 90.0% 90.7% 85.0% 91.6% 89.4% 88.9% ART Prescription 91.0% 92.3% 95.4% 94.7% 92.2% 96.3% 97.4% 97.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Na Nati tive Ameri American an Cen Center ers of

  • f Ex

Excelle llence 2010 2010 ‐ 17 17

2010 (n=46) 2011 (n=49) 2012 (n=52) 2013 (n=44) 2014 (n=47) 2015 (n=47) 2016 (n=20) 2017 (n=19) Viral Load Supression 56.4% 79.6% 73.1% 86.4% 68.1% 76.6% 55.0% 68.4% Retention in Care 91.9% 94.9% 82.9% 71.8% 78.4% 73.7% 70.0% 80.0% ART Prescription 93.5% 93.9% 94.2% 95.5% 95.7% 95.7% 95.0% 100.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Te Tenderloin Ar Area ea Cen Center ers of

  • f Ex

Exce celle llence 2010 2010‐17 17

2010 (n=338) 2011 (n=282) 2012 (n=198) 2013 (n=132) 2014 (n=86) 2015 (n=141) 2016 (n=166) 2017 (n=176) Viral Load Supression 51.5% 61.0% 64.1% 62.1% 62.8% 75.2% 72.9% 71.0% Retention in Care 84.4% 81.6% 83.1% 82.7% 69.2% 70.8% 86.9% 83.1% ART Prescription 85.5% 84.0% 85.4% 86.4% 86.0% 78.7% 74.1% 71.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Wo Women’s Cen Center ers of

  • f Ex

Excelle llence 2010 2010‐17 17

2010 (n=303) 2011 (n=319) 2012 (n=309) 2013 (n=279) 2014 (n=252) 2015 (n=155) 2016 (n=179) 2017 (n=161) Viral Load Supression 70.3% 77.1% 79.3% 77.8% 82.1% 76.1% 85.5% 83.2% Retention in Care 81.7% 85.7% 82.2% 83.9% 77.6% 81.3% 83.3% 89.7% ART Prescription 92.4% 95.3% 96.1% 96.8% 96.8% 94.8% 88.3% 96.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

SF SF EM EMA – Q – Quality In Indicators 2010 2010‐17 17

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Retention in Care 85.9% 85.2% 83.9% 85.2% 76.0% 84.7% 83.5% 84.1% ART Prescription 76.6% 85.2% 86.8% 87.1% 83.9% 80.8% 80.3% 86.8% Viral Load Supression 58.9% 71.2% 74.5% 75.0% 74.0% 81.2% 80.3% 80.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

QUESTIONS & FEEDBACK

23