National Invitational Conference on Long-Term Care Data Bases: Conference Package. IV. DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES


Both primary and secondary data were collected for the channeling evaluation. These data were collected from the following sources:

  • Interviews with sample members and proxies
  • Interviews with informal caregivers
  • Provider records
  • Medicare and Medicaid claims
  • Death records
  • Client tracking records
  • Financial control system at five sites.

This section reviews the primary data collection and provider records extracting procedures.1 The data collection through surveys, the means of collection, and the interviewer auspices were as follows:

  • Screen, telephone interview, administered by demonstration screening unit.

  • Sample member baseline, personal interview, administered by demonstration assessment staff (for clients) or MPR interviewers (for controls).

  • Sample member followup interviews (6, 12, and 18 months), personal or telephone interview, administered by MPR interviewers.

  • Caregiver baseline and followup interviews (6 and 12 months), personal or telephone interview, administered by MPR interviewers.

  • Provider record extracts, collected by trained extractors.

Training materials and procedures for the baseline were developed by MPR in conjunction with Temple University, the demonstration's technical assistance contractor, and all trainers were trained by MPR and Temple staff. Demonstration screen and sample member (client) baseline interviewers were trained by Temple University. All MPR interviewers and extractors were trained by MPR project staff. To assess the comparability of the baselines administered by demonstration and MPR staff, a random validation sample of clients was administered a baseline by both demonstration and MPR staff.

Training was intensive for all instruments. For example, MPR baseline interviewers received five days of training that covered the instruments, procedures, sensitivity training, practice sessions, and evaluation of interviews. The demonstration baseline interviewer staff received the same training plus instruction on collecting clinical data for case management. Sample member followup interviewers were provided with comparable training, augmented by special training on searching for respondents and determining living arrangements. For the caregiver instrument, additional special training was provided on techniques for identifying appropriate caregivers, procedures to follow if the sample member was deceased, and techniques for telephone interviewing. Provider records extractor training covered the use of a provider characteristics instrument and procedures for extracting service use, charge, and reimbursement data from provider records. Respondent payments were made to control group members for baseline interviews and all sample members for followup interviews.

Completion rates for the interviews and provider records extraction are listed in Table 5. If deceased sample members are removed from the calculation, the response rates were uniformly high, at 76 percent or more.

TABLE 5. Completion Rates by Instrument
Instrument Treatment Control Total
Sample Members Baseline 93.3 82.9 88.9
6-Month Followup 75.2 a 73.4 a 74.5 a
12-Month Followup 65.8 a 62.7 a 64.6 a
18-Month Followup 56.6 a 55.0 a 55.9 a
Caregivers Baseline 71.2 83.6 76.0
6-Month Followup 82.4 77.7 80.4
12-Month Followup 82.4 75.6 79.4
Community Service Provider Records Extract --- --- 85.5
Institutional Service Provider Records Extract --- --- 82.8
  1. The major reason for nonresponse was that the sample member had died. The percent of the sample not responding because deceased was 16.5 percent at 6 months, 26.6 percent at 12 months, and 40.9 percent at 18 months.