Louisiana CSoC Outcomes: CANS Analysis · Outcomes Analysis •The following Outcomes Analysis...
Transcript of Louisiana CSoC Outcomes: CANS Analysis · Outcomes Analysis •The following Outcomes Analysis...
Louisiana CSoC Outcomes:CANS Analysis
Wendy Bowlin, LPC, MBA
Director of Quality and Outcomes, Magellan of Louisiana
November 9, 2016
Agenda
1. CANS
• Overview
• Scoring
• Psychometric Properties
• Outcomes Monitoring
2. Member Characteristics
3. Outcomes
4. Modules
5. Next Steps
6. Questions/Feedback
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
2
The Louisiana Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS)
CANS
• The CANS Comprehensive Multisystem Assessment is completed based on a face-to-face interview with the child (and guardian(s) when possible) and additional supporting information.
• The CANS is a multi-purpose tool developed for children’s services to support decision making, including:
‒ Eligibility and service planning,
‒ Facilitating quality improvement initiatives, and
‒ Monitoring of outcomes of services.
• Versions of the CANS are currently used in 50 states in child welfare, mental health, juvenile justice, and early intervention applications.
‒ The Louisiana CANS was developed with Dr. John Lyons to meet the unique needs of the state at the initiation of the CSoC program.
• The CANS links the assessment process and the design of individualized service plans, including the application of evidence-based practices.
http://praedfoundation.org/tools/the-child-and-adolescent-needs-and-strengths-cans/
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
4
Using the CANS
For needs:
0. No evidence1. Watchful waiting/prevention2. Action3. Immediate/Intensive Action
For strengths:
0. Centerpiece strength1. Strength that you can use in planning2. Identified-strength-must be built3. No strength identified
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
5
• The CANS assesses the child in the following areas: Problem behavioral/emotional needs, child risk behaviors, life domain functioning, caregiver strengths & needs, youth strengths, and acculturation.
• The CANS measures Needs and Strengths using a 4 point scale to rate the highest level from the past 30 days:
• A rating of ‘2’ or ‘3’ on a CANS needs suggests that this area must be addressed in the plan.
• A rating of a ‘0’ or ‘1’ identifies a strength that can be used for strength-based planning and a ‘2’ or ‘3’ a strength that should be the focus on strength-building activities.
http://praedfoundation.org/tools/the-child-and-adolescent-needs-and-strengths-cans/
Reliable and Valid Tool
• The CANS has demonstrated reliability (tool produces similar results under consistent conditions) and validity (tool measures what it is purported to measure)
‒ The average reliability of the CANS is 0.75 with vignettes, 0.84 with case records, and can be above 0.90 with live cases.
‒ To further support reliability and validity, Magellan performed input validation (e.g., identifying and investigating outlier scores, duplicates, etc.) to ensure integrity of data.
• Statistical significance means the outcome is the result of a relationship between specific factors versus merely the result of chance.
‒ Measured using a p-value
‒ Anything equal or less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant
‒ The lower the number the more likely outcome is not due to chance
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
6
Outcomes Monitoring
• Outcomes Monitoring can be accomplished in two ways:
‒ Items that are initially rated a ‘2’ or ‘3’ are monitored over time to determine the percent of youth who move to a rating of ‘0’ or ‘1’ (resolved need, built strength).
‒ The Global Score (sum of all items that measure outcomes) and Domain Scores can be generated by summing items within each of the dimensions (Problems, Risk Behaviors, Functioning, etc). These scores can be compared over the course of treatment.
http://praedfoundation.org/tools/the-child-and-adolescent-needs-and-strengths-cans/
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
7
Outcomes Analysis
• The following Outcomes Analysis includes:
• All Population (n= 1278)
• Most Severe or Top 25% (n=332)
• Date Parameters: The date range of the report is from 3/1/2012 to 10/16/2016.
• Only electronic CANS submitted on or after 11/20/2014 are included. (Note: the actual assessment date may have occurred prior to this date.)
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
8
Member Characteristics
Initial Assessments
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
10
57.8
7.8
5.1
10.5
10.5
0.1
18.6
13.0
75.7
10.1
7.7
14.1
14.4
0.2
22.5
16.8
171
15
30
36
36
9
30
30
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0
Global Score
School Behavior
Child Risk Behaviors
Child Behavioral/Emotional Needs
Caregiver Strengths & Needs
Acculturation
Child Strengths
Life Domain Functioning
Max Points Possible Severe: Initial Assessment (Average Sum) All: Initial Assessment (Average Sum)
Diagnostic Characteristics of Members
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
11
0.5%
1.3%
1.4%
4.0%
4.9%
9.6%
10.5%
31.2%
36.5%
0.6%
1.8%
2.1%
4.8%
5.7%
8.4%
12.7%
27.7%
36.1%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
Alcohol and Substance Use
Other
Thought disorders
Developmental and Disorders usuallydiagnosed in childhood
Bipolar
Adjustment, Anxiety and PTSD
Depressive and NOS Mood
Conduct, Oppositional, and Impulse Control
Attention-deficit and NOS disorders
% Severe
% All
Average Length of Stay
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
12
11.2 11.1
0123456789
101112
All Severe
Mo
nth
s
Mean LOS
Outcomes
Global Scores
CSoC Governance Board: CANS14
*All changes represent statistically significant improvement (p≤.001).
57.8
41.5
75.7
51.6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Initial Discharge
All
Severe
Represents a 16.3 point decrease or a 28.2% decline.
Represents a 24.1 point decrease or a 31.8% decline.
Domain Scores: All Population
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
15
18.6
13.813.0
9.0
0.1 0.1
10.5
8.2
10.5
7.3
5.1
3.1
7.8
4.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Initial Assessment Transition DC
Child Strengths
Life Domain Functioning
Acculturation
Caregiver Strengths & Needs
Child Behavioral/EmotionalNeeds
Child Risk Behaviors
School Behavior
*All changes represent statistically significant improvement (p≤.001) except Acculturation Domain.
Domain Scores: Most Severe Population
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
16
22.5
16.016.8
11.4
0.2 0.1
14.4
10.1
14.1
9.4
7.7
4.5
10.1
6.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Initial Assessment Transition DC
Child Strengths
Life Domain Functioning
Acculturation
Caregiver Strengths & Needs
Child Behavioral/EmotionalNeeds
Child Risk Behaviors
School Behavior
*All changes represent statistically significant improvement (p≤.001) except Acculturation Domain.
Problem Presentation: All Population
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
17
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Initial Assessment Transition DC
Somatization
Beh Regression
Psychosis
Impulse/Hyper
Depression
Anxiety
Oppositional
Conduct
Adj to Trauma
Anger Control
Substance Use
Eating Disturbance
*All changes represent statistically significant improvement (p≤.001).
Problem Presentation: Most Severe Population
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
18
*All changes represent statistically significant improvement (p≤.001).
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Initial Assessment Transition DC
Somatization
Beh Regression
Psychosis
Impulse/Hyper
Depression
Anxiety
Oppositional
Conduct
Adj to Trauma
Anger Control
Substance Use
Eating Disturbance
Other Notable Scores
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
19
6.1
3.9
13.4
6.0
3.1
1.9
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
Initial Assessment Transition DC
Juv Justice Avg Sum (n=386)
Violence Avg Sum (n=608)
Trauma Avg Sum (n=594)
*Includes all outcomes elements associated with the module. Average total scores at initial and discharge are reflected in the graph. **All changes represent statistically significant improvement (p≤.001).
% of Youth Triggering Modules
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
20
92.3%
25.7%
16.3%
46.5%
13.8%
56.5%
4.5%
17.4%
29.7%
10.5%
27.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
School
Developmental Disability
Family/Caregiver
Trauma
Substance Use
Violence
Sexually Abusive Behavior
Runaway
Juvenile Justice
Fire Setting
Sexually Abusive Experience
Next Steps
National Benchmarking
• Magellan, with the approval of LDH, is sharing data with University of Washington to assist them with a study on using CANS data for benchmarking and outcomes monitoring in state-wide Wraparound initiatives.
‒ UW recently presented an analysis of three states, including de-identified Louisiana data.
‒ Louisiana CANS scores were close to the mean/average on intensity of needs.
‒ Study identified significant differences between states.
• UW is currently conducting an 8 state analysis to further explore similarities and differences.
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
22
Regional Differences
• Present data to Wraparound agencies, providers, and stakeholders to explore:
‒ Regional differences in percent of youth triggering modules:
o Population differences?
o Referral sources (e.g., court system, community, providers, state agencies, etc.)?
‒ Regional differences impacting outcomes.
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
23
Cross Tabulation Study
• Magellan is in the process of conducting an in-depth statistical analysis to look at other factors that could be influencing why some members are more likely to:
‒ Discharge successfully from CSoC
‒ Have statistically significant improvement on the CANS
• Magellan will compare groups against factors, such as:
‒ Member's DCFS/OJJ involvement
‒ Involved in Office of Citizens with Developmental Disabilities
‒ Number of out of home placements prior to CSoC
‒ Parent and/or Youth Support on Plan of Care
‒ At least one natural/informal support on Child and Family Team
‒ Number of placements in Alternative School Settings
‒ Youth has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
• If relationships are identified, we will be able to better target interventions to certain populations or factors to improve chances of positive outcomes.
• Results expected by the end of 2016.
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
24
Feedback/Questions
Confidentiality Statement
CSoC Governance Board: CANS
26
By receipt of this presentation, each recipient agrees that the information contained herein will be kept confidential and that the information will not be photocopied, reproduced, or distributed to or disclosed to others at any time without the prior written consent of Magellan Health, Inc.
The information contained in this presentation is intended for educational purposes only and is not intended to define a standard of care or exclusive course of treatment, nor be a substitute for treatment.
Thanks