Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 1401–1412 | Cite as

Seven-month Pilot of an Integrated, Continuous Evaluation, and Quality Improvement System for a State-Based Home-Visiting Program

  • Bridget K. McCabe
  • Dru Potash
  • Ellen Omohundro
  • Cathy R. Taylor
Article

Abstract

The objective of this study is to report the findings of a 7-month pilot for an integrated system evaluating a state-wide home visiting program. A cross-sectional study design was used to determine baseline process and outcome measures for Tennessee’s home visiting program which provides services to families, from pregnancy through 5-years-old. Baseline process measures included: time to initiate service after referral; frequency, duration and intensity of visits; completion of continuous assessment; and time from identification of a need to referral. The baseline outcome measures included: needs of eligible services (e.g. developmental screenings, WIC); prenatal care utilization; biological risks (prematurity; low birth weight); tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure; and family planning utilization. During the pilot, 3,794 families were enrolled, representing 68% (± 1.5%) of incoming referrals. Enrollment dropped from 82% (90 days) to 69% (120 days); 52% of the families received a visit every month. Ninety percent of families had at least one full assessment after enrollment; 60% occurred within the first 60 days. Over 92% of outgoing referrals were made within 7 days. Immunization status (70%) is below the state level (80.8%). A quarter of the infants enrolled in the program are low birth weight and premature (state level 9.2%). Current tobacco use by the prenatal population is 16% compared to the state, 19.7%. The HUGS program serves high risk/high need clients and is consistent with other national home visiting models that have shown higher levels of attrition and lower levels of visits than intended by the model.

Keywords

Home visiting Health services evaluation Continuous quality improvement Performance management Pregnancy outcomes Child health 

References

  1. 1.
    America’s Health Rankings: Tennessee. [website] (2009). Date Accessed: 08/22/2010; Available from: http://www.americashealthrankings.org/yearcompare/2008/2009/TN.aspx.
  2. 2.
    Kids Count: The State of the Child in Tennessee. Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth. (2009). State of Tennessee: Nashville, TN. Accessed: 10/15/2010. Available from: http://www.tn.gov/tccy/kc.shtml.
  3. 3.
    Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Kitzman, H. J., Eckenrode, J. J., Cole, R. E., & Tatelbaum, R. C. (1999). Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses: Recent findings. Future Child, 9(1), 44–65, 190–191.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Sidora, K., Henderson, C. R., Jr, Hanks, C., Cole, R., et al. (2000). Enduring effects of nurse home visitation on maternal life course: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA, 283(15), 1983–1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Jr, Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., et al. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 280(14), 1238–1244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., et al. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA, 278(8), 637–643.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., Robinson, J., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W. et al. (2004). Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1550–1559. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0962, 10.1542/peds.2004-0962.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., et al. (2007). Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), e832–e845. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2111, 10.1542/peds.2006-2111.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stoltzfus, E. & Lynch, K. (2009). Home Visitation for Families with Young Children, in CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service, pp. 1–55. Accessed: 09/01/2010. Available from: www.crs.gov.
  10. 10.
    Sweet, M. A., & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development, 75(5), 1435–1456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duggan, A., Windham, A., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., Rohde, C., Buchbinder, S., et al. (2000). Hawaii’s healthy start program of home visiting for at-risk families: Evaluation of family identification, family engagement, and service delivery. Pediatrics, 105(1 Pt 3), 250–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson, K. (2009). State-based home visiting: Strengthening Programs through State Leadership. National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University: New York, NY. Accessed October 3, 2010. Available from: http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_862.pdf.
  13. 13.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Pregnancy risks assessment monitoring system. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA. Accessed October 15, 2010. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/prams/index.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/prams/Questionnaire.htm.
  14. 14.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey Questionnaire. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA. Accessed October 15, 2010. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/index.htm.
  15. 15.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA. Accessed October 15, 2010. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/technical_infodata/surveydata.htm.
  16. 16.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA. Accessed October 20, 2010. Available from: www.cdc.gov/yrbss.
  17. 17.
    Tennessee Department of Health (TDOH). Vital Records System, State of Tennessee, Tennessee Department of Health: Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tennessee Department of Health. (2010). Tennessee Home Visiting Annual Report: July 1, 2008June 30, 2009. State of Tennessee: Nashville, TN. Accessed: 09/23/2010. Available from: http://health.state.tn.us/Downloads/Home%20Visiting%20Report%20FY%202009.FINAL.pdf.
  19. 19.
    Jacobs, F. H., Kapuscik, J. L., Williams, P. H., & Kates, E. (2000). Making it count: Evaluating family preservation services. A guide for state administrators (p. 400). Medford, MA: Tufts University. Family Preservation Evaluation Project.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tennessee Department of Health (TDOH) Communicable and Environmental Disease Services (CEDS). (2009). Immunization status survey of 24-month-old children in Tennessee. State of Tennessee: Nashville, TN. Accessed October 20, 2010. Available from: http://health.state.tn.us/Ceds/PDFs/ImmunizationSurvey2009.pdf.
  21. 21.
    Tennessee Department of Health. Office of Policy Planning and Assessment (PPA). (2008). Tennessee Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Summary Report 2008. State of Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health.: Nashville, TN. Accessed October 26, 2010. Available from: http://hit.state.tn.us/Reports/HealthResearch/2008%20TN%20PRAMS%20Report.pdf.
  22. 22.
    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). (2010). (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119). 111th United States Congress.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2006). Which study designs can produce rigorous evidence of program effectiveness? A brief overview. In Coalition for evidence-based policy working paper. Washington, DC: Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. Accessed October 4, 2010. Available from: http://evidencebasedpolicy.org/docs/RCTs_first_then_match_c-g_studies-FINAL.pdf.
  24. 24.
    Fiore, M., Jaén, C., Baker, T., et al. (May, 2008). Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical Practice Guideline. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service.: Rockville, MD. Accessed October 25, 2010. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hsahcpr&part=A28163.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bridget K. McCabe
    • 1
  • Dru Potash
    • 1
  • Ellen Omohundro
    • 1
  • Cathy R. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Bureau of Health ServicesTennessee Department of HealthNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations