SAMPLE Treatment Perceptions Survey (TPS) Report. XXXXXX County, N=239. (Not Real Data) All Substance Use Treatment Programs Surveyed.

Similar documents
APPLICATION FORMS. For. Certified Prevention Specialist (IC&RC reciprocal) CPS

APPLICATION FORMS. For. Certified Prevention Specialist (IC&RC reciprocal) CPS

2013 Local Arts Agency Salary & Benefits Summary EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR / PRESIDENT / CEO

Certified Peer Recovery Mentor

Students Preferences for Receiving Communication from the University: A Report from the Student Life Survey

IT Web and Software Developer Occupation Overview

1. Use of Digital Materials Survey

2017 PIT Summary: Jefferson County

2017 PIT Summary: Boulder County

Des Moines Area Regional Transit Non Rider Survey

Survey Questions and Methodology

Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology Occupation Overview

Clinton Leads Trump in Michigan by 10% (Clinton 49% - Trump 39%)

Provider Batch Registration Guide

Occupation Overview. Western Technical College. Emsi Q Data Set. March Seventh Street La Crosse, Wisconsin

Survey Questions and Methodology

Registering and submitting data for multiple healthcare organizations... 4

Implementing Optional Gmail Service

McLean BASIS plus TM. Sample Hospital. Report for April thru June 2012 BASIS-24 APR-JUN. McLean Hospital

Comprehend Pro v.1 User s Manual

Cyber Defense 2019 Summer Application

Chapter 4 - Demographic Data Set (DEMO) Table of Contents. I. Document Revision History 2 II. General Policies and Considerations 3

Smartphone Ownership 2013 Update

The SAPS Johannesburg Area Police Transformation Survey Results

APPENDIX G: Biennial Exhibition Device Survey Questions

Usability Testing. November 14, 2016

FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION

Admissions Entering a New Application

Perceptyx Dashboard Basics. HR Version

PHPM 672/677 Lab #2: Variables & Conditionals Due date: Submit by 11:59pm Monday 2/5 with Assignment 2

Table of Contents [Revised: February 6, 2015] PEI-OMA User Manual MAP Supplemental

A STUDY ON SMART PHONE USAGE AMONG YOUNGSTERS AT AGE GROUP (15-29)

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. Residential Child Care Contractors

Setup Guide for TaxSlayer Pro Online (TSO) - TY2016 AARP Foundation National Technology Committee

Sample: n=2,252 national adults, age 18 and older, including 1,127 cell phone interviews Interviewing dates:

Usability and Evaluation of BCKOnline PORTAL Prototype Early breast cancer Recurrent Advanced

FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION

Importing Students. Harcourt ThinkCentral Page 1 of 6

ehealth literacy and Cancer Screening: A Structural Equation Modeling

County Pool Application ANDAR INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL. LINK TO ANDAR SIGN ON PAGE:

Annex 6, Part 2: Data Exchange Format Requirements

State of Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD

Prevention and Early Intervention Outcome Measures Application (PEI-OMA)

Creating Healthy Food Shelves. Resources, Information and Next Steps to a Healthier Food Shelf Environment

THE 2018 CENTER FOR DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS ONLINE GUIDELINES

STUDENT VOICE STUDENT MULTICULTURAL/DIVERSITY SURVEY ANALYSIS

Test Procedure for (c) Record Demographics

Only SAM users with administrative permissions may perform a roster import.

Sample: n=2,252 national adults, age 18 and older, including 1,127 cell phone interviews Interviewing dates:

FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

Mr. Kongmany Chaleunvong. GFMER - WHO - UNFPA - LAO PDR Training Course in Reproductive Health Research Vientiane, 22 October 2009

DHCS PPSDS. End User Guide. Applies to: California DHCS. WITS Version 18.0+

emarketer US Social Network Usage StatPack

FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION

Entering Data into EvaluationWeb

LHCSA Statistical Report Workgroup May 11, 2017

HEALTH COVERAGE ENROLLMENT REPORT

FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION

Admission, Discharge, Update Client Data and Associated Forms

Hyacinth Macaws for Seniors Survey Report

HEALTH COVERAGE ENROLLMENT REPORT

Summary of the State Elder Abuse. Questionnaire for Hawaii

The Rise of the Connected Viewer

Website Usability Study: The American Red Cross. Sarah Barth, Veronica McCoo, Katelyn McLimans, Alyssa Williams. University of Alabama

TRAINING WORKBOOK Pilot Session 2

Setup Guide for TaxSlayer Pro Online (TSO) - TY2017 AARP Foundation National Technology Committee

SAM Settings and Reports for System 44 Next Generation

Program Application Professional Level II Education Specialist Credential Program

State of Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation. Bureau of Education & Testing FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD

Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education

CMHRS Report (Community Mental Health Report System)

Chapter 3 Provider Data Set

Children s Mental Health Outcome Measures Reporting System User Manual

2017 Medicaid Child CAHPS 5.0H. At-A-Glance Report

ITHAKA S+R ASERL: DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

DOMESTIC ABUSE DEATH REVIEW TEAM Fatality Review Data Collection Form. Unknown

Kilgore College Fire Academy Fire Inspector I, II or Plans Examiner Registration Form (rev. 4/10/16)

Device and Internet Use among Spanish-dominant Hispanics: Implications for Web Survey Design and Testing

NANOS SURVEY NANOS SURVEY

2016 Member Needs Survey Results

Usability Report for Online Writing Portfolio

RHY Data Completeness - Data Quality Report User Guide Operating Year October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018

The HEF+ Aggregation tool user manual

Let s get started with the module Getting Data from Existing Sources.

Fall 2012 PENN STATE POLL

Snyder leads by 5%, Peters leads by 14% Snyder 48% - Schauer 43% Peters 52% - Land 38%

ICADV LEGAL SERVICES REFERRAL FORM

CHAPTER - 7 MARKETING IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Mail Findings. Australia Post Consumer Survey. Research into consumer preferences of transactional communications

Safety-enhanced Design EDIS 2014 R (a)(1) Computerized Provider Order Entry

Yawkey Scholars Program for Massachusetts Residents

Detailed System Design Appendix D: Language Packet

Overview. CRA Wiz and Fair Lending Wiz 6.7 Release Notes

THE 2018 CENTER FOR DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS ONLINE GUIDLINES

OnlineAppllfuture. Sample Workshop Application

THE STATE OF ONLINE VIDEO 2017

ANDAR INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL

Developing Mobile Phone for Elderly Users: A Case Study in Surabaya, Indonesia

A D D E N D U M # 2 August 24, 2016

Transcription:

Perceptions Survey (TPS) Report XXXXXX County, N=239 (Not Real Data) All Substance Use s Surveyed November 2017 Prepared by the University of California, Los Angeles Integrated Substance Abuse s *For county use only - not for public release. If counties choose to release these reports to the public, it is recommended they follow the Data De-Identification Guidelines (DDG) prepared by the California Department of Health Care Services. REPORT -- NO REAL DATA USED 1

Table 1. Number of programs** that returned survey forms Outpatient Residential 26 31 27 40 28. 152 ** In this report, program is defined as a unit having a unique combination of CalOMS Provider ID and treatment setting and/or Reporting Unit ID (optional) as indicated on the survey forms or in the data file submitted to UCLA. Table 2. Number of clients who returned survey forms Outpatient Residential 42 50 46 57 44. 239 2

Table 3. Number of completed survey forms by language Language of the Survey Outpatient Residential English 34 40 42 41 39. 196 Spanish 8 10 4 16 5. 43 Table 4. Average client rating for all programs All 14 questions were used to calculate the average score (standard deviation). Scores ranged from 1.0 to 5.0, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Only clients who responded to all 14 questions were included (N=235). Outpatient Residential 4.1 (0.2) 4.0 (0.2) 4.0 (0.3) 4.0 (0.3) 4.1 (0.3). 4.1 (0.3) Table 5. Percentage of clients with a positive rating Overall positive rating was calculated using all 14 questions. Surveys with an average rating of 3.5 or higher were counted as having a POSITIVE rating. Only clients who responded to all 14 questions were included (N=235). Outpatient Residential 100 % 98 % 100 % 92.9 % 95.5 %. 97 % 3

Table 6. Average client ratings (range 1-5) of questions 1-14 by demographics for treatment settings Demographics Total N Outpatient Residential Gender (Multiple response allowed)........ Female 83 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0. 4.1 Male 133 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1. 4.1 Transgender 3.. 4.0 3.8 4.2. 4.0 Additional Identity 1... 3.9.. 3.9 Decline to answer 7 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.6. 3.9 Age........ 18-25 18 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.8 4.4. 4.1 26-35 58 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0. 4.0 36-45 44 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1. 4.0 46-55 54 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.1. 4.1 56+ 39 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.2. 4.1 Race/ethnicity (Multiple response allowed)........ American Indian/Alaskan Native 15 4.1 4.3 4.3 3.7 4.0. 4.0 Asian 8 4.1. 4.1 4.1 4.3. 4.1 Black/African American 45 4.2 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.0. 4.1 Latino 52 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0. 4.0 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 7 4.1. 4.1 4.1 4.4. 4.2 White/Caucasian 106 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1. 4.0 Other 26 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0. 4.1 How long received services here........ First visit/day 15 4.0 4.1 4.2 3.8 4.0. 4.0 2 weeks or less 16 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.1. 4.0 More than 2 weeks 185 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1. 4.1 4

Domain: Access Table 7. Number of responses (percent) for each survey question item question Strongly Disagree(1) Disagree(2) Neutral(3) Agree(4) Strongly Agree(5) 01 Convenient Location 10 ( 4.2%) 13 ( 5.4%) 20 ( 8.4%) 105 (43.9%) 90 (37.7%) 02 Convenient Time 5 ( 2.1%) 16 ( 6.8%) 23 ( 9.8%) 99 (42.1%) 92 (39.1%) Domain: Quality 03 Chose Goals 19 ( 7.9%) 8 ( 3.3%) 23 ( 9.6%) 90 (37.7%) 99 (41.4%) 04 Enough Time 15 ( 6.3%) 8 ( 3.3%) 25 (10.5%) 100 (41.8%) 91 (38.1%) 05 Treated with Respect 8 ( 3.3%) 7 ( 2.9%) 26 (10.9%) 98 (41.0%) 100 (41.8%) 06 Understood Communication 16 ( 6.7%) 16 ( 6.7%) 20 ( 8.4%) 86 (36.0%) 101 (42.3%) 07 Cultural Sensitivity 12 ( 5.0%) 6 ( 2.5%) 20 ( 8.4%) 104 (43.5%) 97 (40.6%) Domain: Care_Coordination 08 Work with PH Providers 16 ( 6.7%) 11 ( 4.6%) 26 (10.9%) 97 (40.6%) 89 (37.2%) 09 Work with MH Providers 7 ( 2.9%) 10 ( 4.2%) 19 ( 7.9%) 112 (46.9%) 91 (38.1%) Domain: Outcome 10 Better Able to Do Things 21 ( 8.8%) 10 ( 4.2%) 23 ( 9.6%) 98 (41.0%) 87 (36.4%) Domain: General_Satisfaction 11 Felt Welcomed 11 ( 4.6%) 13 ( 5.4%) 16 ( 6.7%) 88 (36.8%) 111 (46.4%) 12 Like Services 13 ( 5.4%) 13 ( 5.4%) 27 (11.3%) 100 (41.8%) 86 (36.0%) 13 Enough Help 5 ( 2.1%) 15 ( 6.3%) 17 ( 7.1%) 101 (42.3%) 101 (42.3%) 14 Recommend Agency 11 ( 4.6%) 13 ( 5.4%) 29 (12.1%) 86 (36.0%) 100 (41.8%) 5

Figure 1. Percent of response categories for each survey question 01 Convenient Location 02 Convenient Time 03 Chose Goals 04 Enough Time 05 Treated with Respect 06 Understood Communication 07 Cultural Sensitivity 08 Work with PH Providers 09 Work with MH Providers 10 Better Able to Do Things 11 Felt Welcomed 12 Like Services 13 Enough Help 14 Recommend Agency 4.2 5.4 8.4 43.9 37.7 6.8 9.8 42.1 39.1 7.9 9.6 37.7 41.4 6.3 10.5 41.8 38.1 10.9 41.0 41.8 6.7 6.7 8.4 36.0 42.3 5.0 8.4 43.5 40.6 6.7 4.6 10.9 40.6 37.2 4.2 7.9 46.9 38.1 8.8 4.2 9.6 41.0 36.4 4.6 5.4 6.7 36.8 46.4 5.4 5.4 11.3 41.8 36.0 6.3 7.1 42.3 42.3 4.6 5.4 12.1 36.0 41.8 0 20 40 60 80 100 percent Response_Categories 1Strongly Disagree 2Disagree 4Agree 5Strongly Agree 3Neutral 6

score 5 4 3 2 1 4.1 4.1 Figure 2. Average score of survey questions (range 1-5) 01 Convenient Location 4.0 4.0 03 Chose Goals 02 Convenient Time Access Outcome 4.2 04 Enough Time 4.0 4.1 05 Treated w ith Respect 4.0 07 Cultural Sensitivity 06 Understood Communication Domains Quality General_Satisfaction 4.1 3.9 08 Work w ith PH Providers 4.2 09 Work w ith MH Providers 4.0 11 Felt Welcomed 10 Better Able to Do Things 4.2 12 Like Services Care_Coordination 4.1 13 Enough Help 14 Recommend Agency 7

score 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 3. Average scores of the five domains (range 1-5) 4.1 4.1 4.1 1 2 3 4 5 Access Outcome Domains Quality General_Satisfaction * Only clients who responded to each question in the domains were included. 3.9 Care_Coordination 4.1 8