Quality Management Program Presented by Denise Treadwell July 2016

The CAMTS Quality Management Program is focused on the processes and standards to allow for evaluation and re-evaluation in a continuous effort to improve performance and enhance best practices.

Committee Members Barbara Dunham Cheryl Wraa Heather McClellan Julia Spring Stan Kocol Andrew Farkas Charlann Staab James Houser Steve Sittig Eileen Frazer Karen Rogers Shelley Dixon Dudley Smith Tammy Rush Garett Hickman Jan Eichel

Mission Statement CAMTS is dedicated to improving patient care and transport safety by providing a dynamic accreditation process through the development of standards, education and services that support our vision.

Vision All patients are transported safely by qualified personnel using the most appropriate mode of transport.

Board Deliberation Comparisons Periodically the Quality Committee will select one or two programs and assign them to two different Board members for their review, presentation and accreditation recommendation to the full Board. Neither Board member knows a second Board member is doing the same program and all presentations to the Full Board are identified only by a number. The intent is to measure how consistent the Board is in identifying areas of Concern, Deficiency and Strength, and, most importantly, the final accreditation decision. At the July 2016 Board meeting two programs were selected. In the first case the Full Board heard the presentation and the second Board member presented any differences they had identified. In the second case the program was presented in two different accreditation subcommittees of the Board. The comparisons of each are on the following slides.

Case one: Full Board Presentation and Second Independent Board Reviewer Both recommended the same three areas of acknowledgement Board review B had a few more that the full Board had eliminated Both identified the same areas of concern Both identified the same areas of deficiency Both recommended the same final recommendation which the Full Board accepted. The Board presentation were nearly identical with the Full Board making some changes by eliminating some items or moving them into another classification. Overall the comparisons were remarkably similar.

Case two: Each Board member presented to a different accreditation subcommittee Presenter A included blinded general photos of the program which Presenter B did not Subcommittees A and B each identified the same 2 areas of Acknowledgement Subcommittee A found no areas of Concern and 7 Deficiency (adding one not identified by presenter B) Subcommittee B found 1 area of Concern and 5 areas of Deficiency Both subcommittees voted for full reaccreditation but Subcommittee A also suggested a strong message about their missing and out of date medical protocols. While there were slight differences between the two, the results where the same.

Other Evaluations These evaluations have not been used yet, but are ready to be pushed out using the same process: – New accreditations to evaluate CAMTS process – Program to evaluate SS for Supplemental / Consult / Other – Board to evaluate Lead Site Surveyor Documentation – Lead to evaluate new SS partner after first survey – New SS Self Evaluation after first survey – Board Member Self Evaluation

QM has helped us to identify Revisions or specific areas that we need to address with: – CAMTS Standards – CAMTS Policies & Procedures – Timeliness of the Site Survey Process – Site Surveyor Performance – Board Meeting Deliberation – Customer Satisfaction

Reportable Events How Can We Identify These? – Site Surveyors mixing program materials together when completing reports for multiple programs – Site Surveyors interfering with safe practices during site visit – Site Surveyor projecting Board Decisions on specific items identified during the survey – Site Surveyor projecting Board Decisions regarding Accreditation outcomes – Notification letter to the program not reporting the Board findings / decisions accurately