Quality monitoring of intellectual and developmental disabilities systems in the US: Assessing the utility and applicability of selected National Core Indicators to national and state priorities.
Valerie Bradley, Dorothy Hiersteiner
PMID 36188904WHAT IT FOUND
State managers rated participant-reported IDD outcome measures important, but fewer said they were usable or used for quality improvement.
The paper is a survey of managers, not evidence that the measures improve services.
Key findings
01State public managers rated the measures important, but fewer reported using them for quality improvement.
02Managers found the measures somewhat less usable than important, and possible reasons included wording, results not being immediately actionable, and limited relevance to key audiences.
03The authors describe the survey as a preliminary qualitative audit, not a quantitative examination of alignment between measures and policy.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 27 responses were received, two were incomplete, and two were from one state. The authors describe the survey as qualitative rather than quantitative. Respondents could consult other staff, so a single response may not represent one person's view. The survey reports managers' perceptions, not patient outcomes or service effectiveness. The paper is a first step in periodic review, not a completed audit.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the NCI-IDD measures improve service quality. This survey reports state managers' ratings of importance and usability, and the authors say it is qualitative rather than quantitative.