Survey Development. This task involves development of resident surveys to gather input from residents on general satisfaction of Mukilteo stormwater services. Assumptions: • The Consultant team will develop a draft and final resident survey (on-line and hard-copy versions) to gather input from residents on general satisfaction of Mukilteo stormwater services. An equivalent survey will be prepared in hard-copy and on-line in a StoryMap (Xxxx XxxXXX) format. The Consultant will provide an electronic copy of the hard-copy survey, ready for printing. • The hard-copy survey will be made available in city facilities and at city events and will include a QR code with a link to the on-line survey and availability of the survey in 3 different languages (Korean, Spanish, and simplified Chinese). • The city will print and mail hard-copy surveys. • The on-line survey will be conducted early in the planning process and will be available on the StoryMap site for at least one month. • The Consultant will prepare a draft and final hard copy survey and provide it to the city, who will be responsible for printing, distribution, and collection. • The hard copy survey data will be input by the city into the on-line survey and compiled into a consolidated set of survey analytics. • The survey will be translated into up to three different languages, including Korean, Spanish, and simplified Chinese. • The Consultant will consolidate all survey responses (on-line and hard copy) and prepare a summary report documenting results. • The Project Hub (Task 1) must first be developed as a repository to share StoryMap presentation of survey and open house results.
Survey Development. In March 2012, we conducted a focus group with nine IPMs and used results to refine the survey. In July 2012 we surveyed IPMs associated with all 64 CDC grantee IPs.(66) We developed the survey as a follow-up to our previous IPM surveys and in collaboration with the Association of Immunization Managers (AIM) research subcommittee. The final survey contained a total of 39 questions, 17 of which focused on IISs – the focus of this analysis.(67) Respondents were able to complete the survey by mailing or faxing the paper copy of the survey, or completing it online. Survey implementation We sent a pre-survey fax to the 64 IPMs one week prior to the survey kit, and AIM sent an email notifying IPMs of the impending survey and survey purpose and providing the link for the online version of the survey. In addition to the paper copy of the survey, the mailed survey kit contained a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page that served as the informed consent, a cover letter, an addressed, stamped envelope, a pen, and a signed copy of Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx’s book, House on Fire as an incentive. We emailed all participants to verify receipt of the survey kit, update contact information and answer any questions they had about the survey. Later we conducted in-person telephone reminders, and AIM sent personal email reminders. The survey period closed on September 20, 2012.
Survey Development. The Community Resource Assessment Survey 2002 was developed by OASAS as a modification of the previous survey for the purpose of updating information obtained from community organizations in 2001. Completion time for this previous survey ranged from 30 minutes to several hours, considering time to obtain data. In order to reduce the time required to complete the survey OASAS made several changes to the survey. The 2002 survey contained questions pertaining to location of organization, programs offered, populations served, risk and protective factors targeted, and use of best practice models. The BCYPP version of the Community Resource Assessment Survey 2002 consisted of the key items established by OASAS as well as additional items that asked respondents to briefly describe individual programs offered by their organizations. These additional items gave the organizations the opportunity to describe the different types of programs offered including those that are best practice models. It is important to note that respondents may or may not be aware of the “best practice” status of their organization’s programs. Likewise, it is also important to note that many organizations did not have ready access to a database with the information requested, hence the responses to the survey may be based on best estimates.
Survey Development. Informal interviews of four registered (RRT) and two certified respiratory therapists (CRT) working at a 600-bed tertiary academic medical center were performed. One RRT was a shift supervisor; all others were staff therapists who were routinely assigned to ICU care, routine floor care, or both. The concept of moral distress was explained to each therapist. They were asked if they had experienced moral distress and, if they had, to describe situations in which it occurred. Subsequent analysis and discussion with the advisor for this thesis helped to identify four broad categories into which these situations could be sorted: 1) professional boundaries; 2) team membership and relationship issues; 3) work environment; and 4) clinical care. A list of the situations identified by the RTs and the category to which each was assigned is shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Situations causing moral distress to RTs Situation Category Being required to follow orders for unnecessary therapy. Clinical care Finding that a ventilator change was made by a non-RT while I was in the unit, & no one communicated with me about the order. Boundary issues Continuing to care for a patient on a ventilator when there is no hope of the patient getting well. Clinical Care Heavy workloads Work environment Covering multiple work areas, especially when they are remote from each other. Work environment Being excluded from patient / family meetings where end of life care is discussed. Team membership Having a MD, PA, or NP refuse to consider my point of view on a matter of therapy for a patient. Team membership With those broad categories and specific situations in mind, 7 new survey items were drafted. After consultation and review with the thesis committee and the author of the MDS-R, the number of items was reduced to 5 and the language refined to a point deemed appropriate for a pilot study. The five RT-specific moral distress survey items submitted on the pilot study were:
Survey Development. The researcher used information collected from the literature combined with a comparison of MDSR reporting and notification flow charts (created by PHSRT) to identify potential areas of weakness in MDSR implementation. These identified areas were then developed into survey questions in English and then translated to French by a local consultant. All survey participants spoke French so, further translation into Creole was unnecessary for this audience. The survey is included in Appendix 1.
Survey Development. The content of the survey was based on a previous qualitative study, in which a framework for end user requirements for e-rehabilitation in stroke care was established (Figure 1). The framework comprises 45 identified requirements, classified into eleven self-determined categories and organized by three self-determined key themes: ‘accessibility’, ‘usability,’ and ‘content’. Accessibility refers to “easy access to e-rehabilitation for all end users, including patients with disabilities as a consequence of stroke.” Usability is “the ease with which end users can use e-rehabilitation interventions for recovery after stroke during their stay in the rehabilitation center and/or at home.” Content
Survey Development. The Consultant shall recommend traveler surveys as part of evaluating VMT and vehicle trip impacts. The Consultant shall implement the NYSDOT’s direction regarding recommended surveys. Surveys of individual traveler’s shall be used to estimate current mode shares, the proportion making changes, the specific nature of these changes, and the amount of travel reduced. Under the direction of the NYSDOT, the evaluation plan shall specify the analysis approach in more detail, highlight methodological issues, and explore potential avenues for enhancement. Subtask 3.2 Program & Services Development/Improvement $8,824 ($5,882) Three Region Shared Activity: The Consultant’s Program and Services component shall support on-going service delivery and continuously improve performance of products, services and methodologies based on performance and meeting established goals and objectives.
Survey Development. The survey instrument (Appendix 1) used in this project was developed using two major sources: the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey and the Primary Care Quality-Homeless (PCQ-H) Instrument. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed the HCAHPS tool specifically designed to assess patient experience during a hospital admission (Xxx et al. 2008). The agency sought to address and document disparity across hospitals nationwide through a survey tool, and both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Joint Commission oversaw its development (Xxx et al. 2008). Prior to this survey, national data regarding the inpatient experience was unknown, both with regard to the patient perception of care and the more objective quality of their care (Xxx et al. 2008). The HCAHPS survey instrument underwent rigorous testing and validation beginning in 2002, including numerous cognitive interviews, focus groups, and psychometric analysis as well as a three-part pilot test (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2017). This tool helps to detail more thoroughly the patient experience (i.e. concerns such as communication with physicians and nurses), while also standardizing assessments in order to compare healthcare systems across the country (Xxx 2008). As this is a nationwide, widely utilized and repeatedly validated survey instrument, this tool was an excellent starting point in the creation of the survey utilized in this research project to address this specific question. The tool used in this project uses questions 1-7, which is the subset of questions regarding “your care from nurses” and “your care from doctors,” and 10-17, which is the subset of questions for “your experiences in the hospital” verbatim from the HCAHPS instrument. These questions are labeled at Q13-27 in Appendix 1:
