Theory of Action: Vision for Change: Part 4
An improved CARE Team will provide excellent coordinated and comprehensive support for students. Cleary defined and communicated processes and outcomes will instill confidence in the team’s ability to make an impact.
Effective CARE Team work will result in the following:
- Demonstration of consistent CARE team outreach within one business day of assignment
- 80% of students referred will have a documented connection to a campus resource
- Faculty and staff confidence will increase from somewhat confident (59%) to confident (34%)
Theory of Action: Measurement: Part 5
Takahashi (2014) suggests five areas of measurement for improvement: learning about your system, priority setting, testing the practical theory of improvement, tailoring interventions to individual participants’ need, and developing social and psychological stances necessary for improvement. Three of these are particularly useful in my micro-change project.
Learning About Your System
As mentioned in previous sections, we conducted a SWOT analysis as a team to help us better understand the gaps inherent in the existing CARE process. This was conducted in a focus group format with 9 participants. Schein (2017) concludes group interviews are preferred “because culture is a set of shared beliefs, values, and assumptions, which reveal themselves better in a group setting (p. 315).” The team was broken into groups of 2 or 3 and traveled to each of four stations where they were asked to brainstorm as many strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in five minutes. Following this time, we reviewed the data together and developed labels for each of the SWOT elements. Schein purports the purpose of assessment is to “help the change leader make an assessment that will help move the change forward (p. 297). The SWOT analysis laid the foundation for this, but we needed more data from stakeholders to inform our priorities.
As mentioned in previous sections, we conducted a SWOT analysis as a team to help us better understand the gaps inherent in the existing CARE process. This was conducted in a focus group format with 9 participants. Schein (2017) concludes group interviews are preferred “because culture is a set of shared beliefs, values, and assumptions, which reveal themselves better in a group setting (p. 315).” The team was broken into groups of 2 or 3 and traveled to each of four stations where they were asked to brainstorm as many strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in five minutes. Following this time, we reviewed the data together and developed labels for each of the SWOT elements. Schein purports the purpose of assessment is to “help the change leader make an assessment that will help move the change forward (p. 297). The SWOT analysis laid the foundation for this, but we needed more data from stakeholders to inform our priorities.
Priority Setting
As such, we conducted a short pre-survey of faculty and staff, stakeholders who serve as primary referrals of students needing services. The pre-survey included both Likert-scale questions about employee perceptions of CARE as well as open-ended questions to thicken their stories. While Schein is critical of diagnostic typologies, he does offer some uses for them, specifically that they help us order a variety of phenomena that may be at play in a specific problem. This problem has both technical and cultural elements, so creating some order was a useful exercise. This survey helped us identify the priorities for change.
As such, we conducted a short pre-survey of faculty and staff, stakeholders who serve as primary referrals of students needing services. The pre-survey included both Likert-scale questions about employee perceptions of CARE as well as open-ended questions to thicken their stories. While Schein is critical of diagnostic typologies, he does offer some uses for them, specifically that they help us order a variety of phenomena that may be at play in a specific problem. This problem has both technical and cultural elements, so creating some order was a useful exercise. This survey helped us identify the priorities for change.
Testing the Practical Theory of Improvement
Here, the CARE team identified three strategies. To measure the technical solutions to the problem, we measured 1) lapse of time for all referrals from assignment to outreach and 2) percentage of students connected to campus resources. While we do not have previous data for comparison, we have set target goals for both. The target time from referral to outreach is one business day. The goal for connected students is 80%. This particular goal was not set at 100% because there is some element of student willingness to engage that we cannot control, but the improvement theory incorporates new strategies which aim to move more students toward engagement.
Here, the CARE team identified three strategies. To measure the technical solutions to the problem, we measured 1) lapse of time for all referrals from assignment to outreach and 2) percentage of students connected to campus resources. While we do not have previous data for comparison, we have set target goals for both. The target time from referral to outreach is one business day. The goal for connected students is 80%. This particular goal was not set at 100% because there is some element of student willingness to engage that we cannot control, but the improvement theory incorporates new strategies which aim to move more students toward engagement.
Finally, we conducted a post-survey to measure the change in confidence of the CARE team. The post-survey questions focused on confidence levels at the end of the implementation cycle and a narrative of how faculty are experiencing the changes. The aim was to move faculty and staff from “somewhat confident” to “confident” by the end of the semester.
PDSA Cycle: Part 6
The Plan
One complaint of the CARE Team is the inefficiency with which students are connected to campus resources. The SWOT analysis and pre-survey suggested this may be due to the lack of clear internal procedures. To address the lack of clarity in CARE team processes, a technical problem (Heifetz et al, 2009), the following improvements were implemented:
- Develop an intake process
- Develop protocol for students who do not respond
Both the Intake Process and Non-Responder Protocol were developed at a CARE Team meeting (1/15/2020) and the PDSA Cycle began 2/1/2020.
New Intake Process
- Referral received via email and case assigned to team member.
- Team member contacts student within one-business day of assignment.
- Team member completes triage form which asks questions to assist the team member in assessing the most appropriate campus resource(s)
- Expand the story as necessary. At times, the student cannot reflect enough to provide a full assessment. The team member may contact faculty, academic advisor, residence director, coach, or other connection point to deepen their understanding.
- Determine most appropriate resource and connect the student.
- Follow up to ensure connection is made and to check in with student 2-3 weeks post connection.
Protocol for Non-Responding Students
- Email/call/text outreach within 24 hours (business days) of assignment
- If student fails to respond within 3 days, schedule an Outlook appointment using the student’s class schedule as a reference
- If student fails to attend the meeting, contact Public Safety to escort student from class to CARE Team contact
The cultural issue most prevalent in this project is the lack of confidence in the CARE team. The pre-survey revealed that faculty and staff described CARE as a black hole, where referrals are submitted without acknowledgment of receipt or action. While the technical solutions alone could bring improvement to CARE, the improvement can be broadened by sharing these changes in process with the people who make the referrals, shaping a new CARE story. As such, we developed a change vision for CARE which was shared with the campus community. This vision included the purpose, people, and programs of CARE and highlighted the new procedures. How the change vision was communicated is laid out in the communication plan.
Communication Plan
The communication plan consisted of two components. First, we developed a follow up loop for CARE Team member communication with referring employees.
Follow up Loop
Second, we developed an awareness campaign where we met with campus stakeholders to share information about CARE: our change vision, purpose of the program, members of the team, campus resources that provide support, and highlights of our procedural changes. The intention was to roll this out via department meetings, as face-to-face communication seems to have more impact at Westminster. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prevented us from holding such meetings. The content was delivered virtually to the faculty via a Zoom meeting. This platform and faculty meeting procedures did not permit questions and dialogue. The meetings with head coaches and staff have been postponed.
Timeline
January 15 – Planning retreat to develop and clarify procedures
February 1 – Implement new Intake Process, Non-Responder protocol, and Referral Follow Up Loop
March 1 – CARE Awareness campaign: Email blast
April 2 – CARE Awareness campaign: Faculty meeting
March 17 – CARE Awareness campaign: Coaches meeting (Postponed)
March 19 – Care Awareness campaign: Support staff meeting (Postponed)
Weekly – Assess and tweak processes as needed
April 10 – Survey respondent focus groups & compile efficiency and effectiveness data for CARE connections
Comments
Post a Comment