1. Home
  2. Oversight of State Performance (OSP) – CPAR

Performance Report

Performance Report

Oversight of State Performance (OSP) – CPAR

QUALITY:

HMS provided assistance to CMS Central Office, by supporting a department-wide effort to assist U.S. Territories and Indian Health Services to improve quality of care and safety in their communities and provided assistance to CMS Regional Offices by performing on-site surveys to assist with oversight of States. HMS ensured the information provided to CMS through weekly meetings, as well as monthly and quarterly reports was clear, accurate, timely and useful. Additional tasks, adjustments, and modifications were provided as requested.  

For development of analytic data reports on state performance, HMS was responsive, developed data reports to meet CMS’ needs, and formatted information to make the information accessible. HMS worked on State-specific reports for all States, which was well received by users in the ROs.

HMS provided analysis to CMS related to the implementation of the LTC Survey Process. HMS completed an in-depth review of surveyor documents to identify areas of improvement. In addition, HMS assisted CMS with gathering information related to infection control practices in skilled nursing facilities that provide services to ventilator-dependent residents. 

Also, HMS continued to work with Survey & Certification operations in five State survey agencies. HMS facilitated strong relationships with the States and CMS Regional Offices and recommend practical areas of improvement. Detailed actions plans were developed and monitored, and HMS assisted the States in executing the plans through multiple activities, such as the development of guides, reporting tools, presentations for training and orienting staff, tracking sheets, training exercises, templates for correspondence, and draft standard operating procedures and policies. The outcome of HMS’ work includes, but is not limited to, improvements in surveyor outcomes, implementation of complaint protocols, establishment of staff accountability, and increased quality and efficiency in State operations. 

For surveys, generally, HMS performed their survey duties professionally, competently, and with an understanding that they represented both HMS and CMS. CMS received positive feedback regarding the experience and professionalism of HMS’ surveyor staff. There were instances where survey documentation required revisions; in these instances, HMS was responsive to comments from CMS Central Office, the CMS Regional Offices, and States. 

HMS also completed an infection control pilot and performed an assessment as to whether there were any gaps in the nursing home survey process. 

HMS also developed content for the Surveyor Orientation Resource manual. The development of the manual required flexibility from HMS, as CMS was in the process of revising policies and needed to assure that these were incorporated into the deliverables.

SCHEDULE: 

HMS provided all deliverables within the SOW in a timely manner. HMS was willing to work with CMS on scheduling surveys, even as surveys were not distributed evenly through the contract year; HMS planned ahead in trying to anticipate any potential staffing shortages. For example, HMS was able to deploy surveyors for 25% of its trips in a two-month period. HMS also exceeded the expectations by providing assistance on surveys with short notice when needed by CMS and the States. For some of these cases, this allowed CMS to provide oversight of facilities to ensure that residents and patients were receiving quality care in a safe environment. HMS accommodated survey requests from Central Office, the Regions, and States without delay. 

HMS also assured that all deliverables under the other tasks of the contract were timely.

COST CONTROL: 

HMS has provided the requested assistance, including additional requests and modified work within the stated cost structure. HMS made every effort to ensure travel arrangements were made at the earliest possible date in order to ensure cost savings. HMS ensured a strict adherence to the GSA rates and Federal Travel Regulations in an effort to maintain costs at a minimum. HMS made every effort to schedule surveys together, when possible, in order to assist with cost control. Also, when there were unanticipated survey cancellations, HMS worked to see if they could salvage the travel costs and conduct a survey at a different facility.

MANAGEMENT: 

HMS staff, including the Project Director, was always readily accessible and maintained open communication with CMS staff. HMS responded to all scheduled and additionally requested tasks in an accurate and timely manner.  

HMS management was highly responsive to feedback on specific tasks and took immediate action to ensure that CMS’ needs were met, the project met the terms of the SOW and moved in the right direction. For example, when there were errors identified in CMS’ datasets, HMS did not allow this to hinder the project task; the work continued and ultimately met CMS’ needs. They also actively sought out feedback on their continued performance under the Contract which assisted in identifying issues early and addressing them constructively.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: 

HMS has successfully met the terms of the Contract and has worked to identify efficiencies and areas of improvement.

RECOMMENDATION: 

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order’s most significant requirements, I would recommend them for similar requirements in the future.

RECOMMENDATION: 

Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order’s most significant requirements, I would recommend them for similar requirements in the future.

© 2020 HMS | About Us  | Contact | Employee Resources