Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.
-
Upload
edward-hoover -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.
![Page 1: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites
Interim ReportSeptember 2011-June 2012
![Page 2: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overall Objective of Interim Report
• Identification of:– Preliminary strengths– Challenges– Key learnings– Effective Practices, and,– Emerging considerations
To help improve the delivery of speech and language services
![Page 3: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Historical Background
• Speech and Language Services funded by 3 ministries (MCYS, MOHLTC, MOE) with specific mandates (Memorandum 81)
• Operating in silos• 2009-10: School Health Review of CCAC
with recommendations to optimize all resources to develop an integrated coordinated system to meet the needs of the children/students requiring them
![Page 4: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Shared Speech and Language Vision
• To provide publically funded Speech and Language Services for children/students that are:– Based on the needs of the whole child– Evidence based and provided within the
context of key developmental milestones– Seamless for children and families– Supportive of key transitions
![Page 5: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Background Context
• To explore 7 different models of delivering integrated speech and language services; from various parts of Ontario including Toronto, Niagara Falls, Kenora, Kingston, Halliburton area and London
• Tri-ministry funded for implementation and evaluation
• To inform future re-engineering of speech and language services for children
![Page 6: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Data Collection
• Qualitative data through stakeholder consultations
• Pre and post implementation surveys to parents, providers and educators
• Monthly data submissions• Historical data submission• Financial data• Data collected from site manager’s meetings
and provincial advisory committee
![Page 7: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Outcomes expected from Demonstration Sites
• Improve continuity of speech and language services and supports for children/students from birth to minimum grade 3
• Reduce waiting lists• Reduce wait times• Improve speech language and literacy outcomes for
children/students• Improve transitions for children/students with speech and
language disorders and their families• Improve the cost-effectiveness of speech and language
services and supports
![Page 8: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Evaluation AttributesAccess, Quality & Value
• # of children/students referred to Demonstration site• # referrals by providers to in-school support teams, Tier
1 services and other services• Wait times (3); referral to consent, to assessment to
intervention• Variety and # of interventions provided to
students/children• Service transitions experiences• # of children discharged• Caseloads of providers; and• Cost of serviceAlso, qualitative data on experiences, lessons learned etc.
![Page 9: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Preliminary Findings and Insights
![Page 12: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Access
• Expanding and standardizing eligibility criteria and use of common screening tools
• Proactive engagement through planned outreach activities..parents/educators
• Adjusting the timing and location of screening..JK entry, JK
• Shortening wait times through streamlined admin processes..ie. consent at screening
• Reducing wait times through resource management. Fund allocations, support of partners, 1 SLP
• Service Mandate Flexibility-parent’s preference is to have services provided at school (+/- parent involvement)
![Page 14: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Quality
• Integrating both speech and language delivery• Standardized Individual Service Plans-templates
and protocols-communication• Broadening the range of interventions for better
service• Creating efficiency through leveraging
community services-ie Tier 1 programs in ISP, PD training etc.
• Conducting formal planning for smoother transitions
![Page 15: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Value
• Having resource flexibility for effective caseload management. using a variety of s/l interventions..use of CDA’s..streamlined processes and coordination
• Aligning discharge management with completed service plans
![Page 16: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Consistent Positive Changes Across Sites
• Improved perceptions regarding accessibility of speech and language services amongst parents, educators and providers
• Enhanced integration of speech and language service delivery, and,
• Increased collaboration amongst parents, educators and providers within speech and language service delivery
![Page 17: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Collective Findings
![Page 18: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![Page 20: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![Page 22: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Summary of Effective Practices for Service Mandate Flexibility
• Expanding PSL Programs’ mandates increases emphasis on early identification of children/students with speech and/or language needs and increases inter-sectoral collaboration;
• Having school-based providers extend their mandates to serve JK students expands on providers’ existing relationships within schools and leverages their existing knowledge of the educational system;
• Continuing the delivery of services (i.e. not having a formal referral) to students in JK and SK that previously received speech and/or language services in through the PSL Program reduces wait times for these age cohorts;
• Providing services onsite at schools creates more convenience for parents and students to receive services and for educators to connect with providers; and
• Utilizing engagement practices with parents, regardless of service location, helps to connect them with providers, resulting in a better understanding of services and increased involvement in their child’s service plan.
![Page 23: Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56649ea85503460f94bac53d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Year 2
• Child/Student outcomes (FOCUS, Goals, GAS)
• Experience transitions
• Common screening and intake tools
• Ongoing wait times
• Discharge planning and protocols
• Cost of services