Feedback Readiness Index and Fidelity Measure (FRIFM) - International Center for Clinical Excellence

Feedback Readiness Index & Fidelity Measure
Introduction

The Feedback Readiness Index and Fidelity Measure (FRIFM) is an organizational readiness checklist and evaluation tool for behavioral health agencies, services and/or systems of care specifically designed to assist in the implementation of FIT. The FRIFM addresses six realms, each of which is an important organizational component in evaluating a system’s readiness to implement or fidelity to a feedback informed approach to services.

The FRIFM provides detailed indicators of issues likely to impede successful implementation of FIT practice. By completing this tool, agency managers are able to quickly and easily:
- Identify a system’s strengths and weaknesses important to using the FIT approach.
- Prioritize realms in need of consultation and training.
- Set specific objectives and goals necessary for successful implementation of FIT.
- Measure progress of and identify barriers during implementation.
Administering and then comparing the responses of the clinical staff, supervisors, and managers, can help identify and foster discussion regarding the successes, challenges, and barriers to implementing FIT. It is recommended that the FRIFM be used not only as a tool to assess readiness for FIT implementation but also as a means of evaluating whether all necessary steps and structures are in place to support FIT in the agency throughout the installation and implementation stages. The FRIFM document provides a clear picture of an agency in “full and sustainable operation.”

Completing the online assessment

Once you have completed the assessment you will receive a report detailing the scores. Since the report may take some time to complete your data is saved and you can return to it later to complete.

We realise that this is a substantial amount of information to share online about an agency. This data is stored on a secure server. Any concerns or questions please email us at info@centerforclinicalexcellence.com.

Assessment results

Once you have completed the FRIFM you will see your results.

Name*

First NameLast Name
Work Email*
example@example.com
Agency Name*
Number of Clinicians
ZOHO CRM - Lead Source

Feedback Readiness Index and Fidelity Measure Instructions
The Feedback Readiness Index and Fidelity Measure (FRIFM) is an organizational readiness checklist and evaluation tool for behavioral health agencies, services and/or systems. The FRIFM addresses six realms, each of which is an important organizational component in evaluating a system’s fidelity or readiness to implement a feedbackinformed (FIT) approach to services. The six realms are:
- Realm 1 - Clinical Implications
- Realm 2 - Administrative
- Realm 3 – Information Systems/Paperwork/Documentation/IT
- Realm 4 – Regulatory and Accreditation
- Realm 5 - Consumers
- Realm 6 - Funders
Each realm consists of a series of statements that serve to:
1. Identify a system’s strengths and weaknesses important to using a FIT approach.
2. Enhance a strategic planning process that will assist an organization to:
  - Identify initial steps necessary to transition to FIT services.
  - Prioritize which realms need consultation and training to adjust.
  - Project timelines, strategic objectives and goals to implement formal client feedback on the quality and outcome of services.
3. Determine what resources, training and consultation would be helpful to:
  - Implement systems driven by client feedback and outcomes data.
  - Identify and provide necessary areas of staff development.
  - Establish documentation and information policies and procedures to achieve a FIT approach while reducing time spent in documentation tasks.
How to Use the FRIFM:
The checklist and self-evaluation can be used in a number of ways:
1. As a tool for generating discussion among the clinical and administrative staff regarding the challenges or shortfalls in implementing FIT:
  - Staff and administration could meet and work through each realm.
    Current realities, attitudes, opportunities or obstacles are raised and discussed as the team rates each item as Not Applicable; or from 1 to 5 with rating 5 representing full agreement.
  - Relevant personnel for each realm could rate each section in separate meetings. Final evaluation scores could then be discussed with the whole group.
2. In conjunction with onsite training and consultation to clarify and address
  whatever challenges are shortfalls are identified in process of completing the form:
  - Telephone or onsite consultation clarifies with the executive team of the organization what priorities, resources, and strategies are needed to initiate action for change in the system.
  - Timelines, deliverables and responsibilities are delineated from this
    interactive consultation process.
3. As an organizing tool to engage and enlist the input, planning and change
  strategies of relevant team members for each FRIFM realm.
  - The importance of administration support and buy-in to successful
    implementation of FIT is, for example, highlighted as management
    addresses the items in realm 2.
  - Either alone or with consultation assistance, the organization uses the realms and resulting ratings to plan implementation strategies for each segment of the organization and for each stakeholder area.
4. As a fidelity and progress measure, the FRIFM can be completed as
  implementation occurs:
  - Re-evaluation and rating of items provides a measure of progress to help modify the plan based on the results of organizational change.

	N/A	No, None, Never	Very Limited, Not Often	Partially. Frequently	Mostly, Regularly	Yes, Fully Always
Administer and score the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) each visit or “unit of service”.
Administer and score the Session Rating Scale (SRS) each visit or “unit of service”.
Adjust the level or type of care in response to client feedback on the ORS and SRS.
Use outcome (ORS) data to develop an “expected treatment response” (ETR) for each client.
Plot client progress (ORS scores) on individualized graphs from session to session to determine which clients are making progress and which are at risk for a negative or null outcome.
Use the ORS and SRS to adjust the level or type of care and to determine whether the service is addressing the client’s focus of treatment.
Modify the “service delivery plan” in response to formal client feedback on objective measurement tools.
Use the SRS to discuss whether the service matches the clients goals for treatment.
Use the SRS to discuss whether the service matches the client’s culture, worldview, and preferences.

	N/A	No, None, Never	Very Limited, Not Often	Partially. Frequently	Mostly, Regularly	Yes, Fully Always
Relates to the “Core Competencies” of a feedback-informed (FIT) approach to treatment services.
Is based on and targeted by outcome data aggregated over clinician’s case load rather than on theoretical knowledge or technical expertise.
Is evaluated for impact on effectiveness via aggregated ORS data over time.
Is available when ORS data identifies cases at risk for negative or null outcomes.
Encourages diversity in thinking and treatment approach to match individual client culture, preferences, and worldview.

	N/A	No, None, Never	Very Limited, Not Often	Partially. Frequently	Mostly, Regularly	Yes, Fully Always
Ongoing training is oriented toward and structured core competencies of feedback-informed treatment (FIT).
Is based on identified deficits in core competencies of feedback-informed treatment (FIT).
Is targeted to clinicians whose outcomes fall below clinic, agency, or state norms as determined by aggregated ORS and SRS data.

	N/A	No, None, Never	Very Limited, Not Often	Partially. Frequently	Mostly, Regularly	Yes, Fully Always
The agency uses the ORS and SRS to facilitate individualized treatment planning.
The agency has a formal, continuous, automatic system to collect client outcome data that is integrated into the service delivery process.
The agency has infrastructure to support the collection and analysis of ORS and SRS data on each individual consumer with real time feedback to the therapist.
The agency has a training plan for all staff that supports feedback informed treatment (FIT).
The agency has written admission, transfer, and discharge policies that are based on “expected treatment response” trajectories derived from individual client ORS data.
The agency’s Mission Statement and strategic plan incorporates client outcome data as a central feature of its service delivery system.
The agency uses client outcome data to identify under-performing therapists or programs.
The agency has a structure for using outcome data to develop norms for determining the dose of treatment required to achieve statistically and clinically significant change.
The agency has a structure for identifying which clients are at risk for a negative or null outcome based on aggregated ORS data.
The agency has a structure and policy for addressing clients who are not progressing that insures continuity of care.
The agency has policies and procedures for informing funders and/or referral sources in real time of individual client progress.
The agency has policies that integrate support staff functions with the collection of client/consumer outcome and alliance data.
The agency has consensus amongst senior managers that the client feedback via the ORS and SRS are the central drivers of service delivery of the agency.
The agency has policies that reflect a commitment to therapist accountability and use of client feedback to guide and inform client service delivery.
The agency “Client Rights and Responsibilities policy” includes a statement regarding the use of formal client feedback to guide treatment planning.
The agency director has developed consensus with the agency’s Board of Directors on the application of an outcome informed and consumer directed service delivery system.
The agency communicates regularly with funding entities and referral sources about agency effectiveness and outcome data.
The agency uses outcome data to guide therapist/staff training programs.
The agency’s board of directors, supervisors and line staff receive ongoing outcome data regarding therapist/program performance relative to agency and state norms.
The agency is committed to providing individual lengths of service for each client/consumer based on ORS outcome data.
The agency has an automatic and scalable data collection and analysis system.
The agency has a clearly articulated business plan that supports feedback informed service delivery.
The agency has a human resource development plan that supports primary and continuing education of staff in feedback-informed service delivery at all levels.

	N/A	No, None, Never	Very Limited, Not Often	Partially. Frequently	Mostly, Regularly	Yes, Fully Always
Data collection (outcome, alliance, intake) is done in a collaborative manner with clients.
Data collection relates to client service and progress.
Data collection facilitates easy management of client service & progress.
Information systems provide reliable, efficient data that is used in real time to prevent dropout/improve retention.
Data collection is continuous, and provides usable data in real time for quality improvement purposes.
Information systems respect and encourage innovation and diversity.
Data collection is trans-theoretical as regards treatment modality.
The information system provides feedback in real-time.
Feedback system and paperwork is automated.
Information systems allow for comparisons in real-time for effectiveness of different providers, groups, agencies and treatment systems

	N/A	No, None, Never	Very Limited, Not Often	Partially. Frequently	Mostly, Regularly	Yes, Fully Always
Regulatory and accrediting entities have clear standards and expectations that facilitate implementation of a feedback-informed treatment (FIT).
Regulatory and accrediting entities are able to identify which programs achieve below, average or above average outcomes according to national norms.
Regulatory and accrediting entities monitor programs around dynamic, real-time measures of outcome, alliance, and consumer satisfaction.
Regulatory and accrediting entities expect programs to have a real-time system for informing the program and practitioners when their outcomes are outside national norms.
Regulatory and accrediting entities expect programs to have a real-time system for identifying when particular consumers are not satisfied with the type, level or provider of care.
Regulatory and accrediting entities monitor programs’ system for identifying cases at risk proactively (in real time) rather than relying on a reactive system of problem management.
Regulatory and accrediting entities expect programs to have an actuarial approach, which predicts which clients need a change in the type, level of provider of care.
Regulatory/accrediting entities establish information systems that allow consumers to identify where to receive the most effective care.
Regulatory and accrediting entities can compare programs by comparative aggregate outcomes.
Regulatory and accrediting entities establish information systems to ensure 100% client participation in and responsivity to client preferences in choice of treatment.

	N/A	No, None, Never	Very Limited, Not Often	Partially. Frequently	Mostly, Regularly	Yes, Fully Always
Consumers have complete and unfettered access to their records.
Consumers participate actively in the creation of their records as demonstrated by their ability to discuss specific aspects of their service plan.
Consumers’ treatment plans are structured by their priorities, goals, preferences, and progress.
Level and type of care offered to consumers is informed by initial score on the ORS.
Consumer feedback via the ORS and SRS is taken seriously, and used to alter/modify the course of treatment in real time.
Consumers are informed of the formal process and time-frame for dealing with treatment that is ineffective or undesired.
Consumer feedback on the SRS is used for tailoring treatment to the consumer’s preferences, desires and needs.
Consumers have ready access to valid results and measurements of the effectiveness of programs and therapists.

	N/A	No, None, Never	Very Limited, Not Often	Partially. Frequently	Mostly, Regularly	Yes, Fully Always
Funding agency has policies that reward superior performing participating agencies.
Funding agency has a direct data link with participating service agencies that reimburses therapists/agencies for positive outcomes
Funding agency and participating agencies have polices that allow for a trans-theoretical approach to services.
Funding agency and participating agencies link reimbursement to positive outcomes for individual clients using integrated and continuous assessment of client response to services rendered to the client.
Funding agency provides outcome data to consumers.
Funding agency determines continuing service needs based upon outcome and process data measures.
Funding agency uses outcome data to compare treatment programs on a regular basis and make value-based funding decisions

Feedback Readiness Index & Fidelity Measure

Feedback Readiness Index and Fidelity Measure Instructions