Community Risk Screen Tool: Survey Results

November 2011 saw the roll out of the new Community Risk Screen program and PARIS module. Feedback has been forwarded to directors and managers and will be used to make decisions regarding how to improve the program where possible. Overall, the majority of responses were very favourable towards the CRS Tool.

 Despite diversity of the Community Care Sector, respondents were largely in agreement in their responses to the survey questions. Richmond, Vancouver and Coastal all took part in the survey. All programs were represented. Many different positions/job categories responded.

 Objectives of the tool are to:

  • assist in the identification of risks
  • focus on staff safety
  • increase staff awareness of their risks and assist in reducing them
  • improve communication of identified risks among clinicians and between programs, and
  • develop a risk screen tool that is practical, accessible, reliable, effective, easy to use and understand.

It appears that the objectives for the risk screen tool have been met but we recognize that there is room for improvement.  

 Management will receive specific response data, but the overall summary of all respondents follows.

 

Survey Questions

Survey Responses

PREPARATION FOR USE OF COMMUNITY RISK SCREEN TOOL (CRST)
  1. I received education/training (coaching/support) before using the CRST
  • majority Agree or Agree Strongly
  1. The education/training enabled me to use the CRST
  • majority Agree or Agree Srongly
  1. I understand the difference between Hazard and Risk
  • majority Agree but a few Disagree – area for improvement
  1. I know who to direct questions to regarding the CRST
  • majority Agree / a number of Neutral and Disagree
  1. Leadership supports the CRST (eg. communicates the importance of the CRST, assists and follows up with CRST questions/concerns)
  • majority Agree or Agree Strongly
CRST FUNCTIONALITY/APPLICABILITY
  1. The Tool is user friendly  (eg. easy to complete, navigate, view)               
  • majority Agree/Agree Strongly / some Neutral / a few Disagree
  1. Paper users/Downtime procedures: The “Instructions for Use” are useful and of clinical value           
  • majority Neutral/Agree with 15 Disagree
  1. The ”Reference Guidelines” (or “Tips” in PARIS) are useful /of clinical value
  • majority Agree with a few Neutral
  1. The CRST supports documentation of comments, risks and controls
  • majority Agree with a few Neutral
  1. For Public Health/C&FH/ICY: I am satisfied with the Copy function
  • majority Agree/Neutral
CRST EFFECTIVENESS
  1. Use of the CRST has increased my knowledge of safety
  • majority Agree / Neutral with some Disagree
  1. The CRST has improved communication of identified risks among Clinicians, and 13. Improved communication of same between programs
  • majority Agree/Agree Strongly or are Neutral / some Disagree (communication will further improve over time)
WORKPLACE SAFETY CULTURE
  1. I believe my safety is as important as client safety
  • almost all Agree or Agree Strongly
  1. We discuss staff safety at work
  • almost all Agree or Agree Strongly
  1. I feel supported to make a decision not to put myself at risk due to a situation which I perceive as unsafe
  • most Agree or Agree Strongly 
  1. In my area, following an incident with a client, we debrief and engage in prevention planning
  • majority Agree/Agree Strongly with some Neutral (4 respondents Disagree)

 Future improvements to the program have been identified in four areas: the Risk Screen Tool, Education, Policy & Management and PARIS/IMITS. In the next while this information will be shared and discussed with staff. 

 Education is a key element in the roll out of new programs. The positive response to education of the CRS Tool was a key factor to the success of the CRS Tool. Education suggestions included ideas on how information about the CRS Tool can be kept regularly updated at the local level. Further education is needed to help staff understand the difference between Hazard and Risk. Improvements for completing the Pre-Visit assessment were suggested. Also, the intent of the program is that risk screening be done for all clients, not just new ones. Now that the program has been in place for a year it is a good time to start completing risk screens for all clients. PARIS module changes were suggested and are under review, some being vendor-specific and unchangeable. Risk screening is guided by Policy (link below).

Suggestions in the survey report, or any new items that arise, can be addressed in the regular manner to management or the joint safety committee for implementation or review. Management can refer to the appropriate group, advisory committee or Workplace Health.

 Community Risk Screening information and resources are on the Workplace Health site at: http://www.vcha.ca/ee/workplace_health/my_safety_at_work/community_risk_screen_program/page_101198.htm