Tracking former welfare recipients and direct service providers in Massachusetts

Thesis (M.C.P.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning, 1999.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 94-95).In August of 1996, welfare policy in the United States went through the most significant transformation since the New Deal. Once a theoretical notion and popular political agenda, welfare reform came to fruition in the United States with bipartisan support. President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which made good on his promise to "change welfare as we know it". The Personal Responsibility Act mandates that welfare recipients can only receive benefits for a limited period of time, also, all nonexempt recipients must work for their benefits. Furthermore, the law gives individual states much more autonomy in creating their own welfare policy and in determining who is eligible for benefits. The federal government rewards states decreasing the number of families on welfare and for reducing the number of out-of-wedlock children born to women on welfare. The states are given the power to reduce the grant amount given to recipients who do not meet the work requirements and other regulations. Several states, like Massachusetts, have used this new found "autonomy" to create welfare reform rules that are more stringent than the regulations developed at the federal level. As clients make the transition off welfare, they encounter barriers and victories at three critical phases in the transition. Phase one is the period of time when the welfare recipient is still receiving Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) benefits, but is scheduled to lose the benefits in less than 24 months. The second phase occurs during the recipient's first year without benefits. The final phase begins at the start of the former recipient's second year without benefits and lasts until the recipient is eligible for benefits again or achieves economic self-sufficiency. The welfare recipient's survival during each of the phases is dependent her strategy or approach to the transition, her level of preparation for the workforce, the support she receives from her family and advocate organizations, and her access to jobs and child care. Organizations that provide housing support can play a pivotal role in a TAFDC recipient's transition off welfare, since these organizations have the capacity to supply affordable housing and a "safety net" during each of the phases. As the number of "former" welfare recipients increases, it is imperative that policy makers and direct service providers uncover the barriers and successes that TAFDC recipients encounter as they journey from welfare dependency to a life without benefits. Equally significant is the need for an understanding of the welfare system from the perspective of the welfare recipient. The recipient's "bottom-up" perception sheds light on the complexities of the journey from welfare to a life without TANF benefits. If used properly, this knowledge can ensure that welfare reform becomes a policy that lifts poor families out of poverty instead of sentencing them to a life of low wages.by Joelle N. Simpson.M.C.P

Caregiver Perspectives on Including Children in Alternative Emergency Medical Services Disposition Programs: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES: Almost half of pediatric EMS calls may be for low-acuity problems. Many EMS agencies have implemented alternative disposition programs for low-acuity patients, including transportation to clinics, substituting taxis for ambulances, and treatment in place without transport to an emergency department. Including children in such programs poses specific challenges, with one concern being potential caregiver opposition. Limited published evidence addresses caregiver perspectives on including children in alternative disposition programs. Our objective was to describe caregiver perspectives of alternative EMS disposition systems for low-acuity pediatric patients. METHODS: We conducted six virtual focus groups (one in Spanish) with caregivers. A PhD-trained facilitator moderated all groups using a semi-structured moderator guide. A hybrid inductive and deductive analytical strategy was used. Multiple investigators independently coded a deidentified sample transcript. One team member then completed axial coding of the remaining transcripts. Thematic saturation was achieved. Clusters of similar codes were grouped into themes by consensus. RESULTS: We recruited 38 participants. Participants had diverse race-ethnicity (39% non-Hispanic white, 29% non-Hispanic Black, and 26% Hispanic) and insurance status (42% Medicaid and 58% private health insurance). There was agreement that caregivers often utilize 9-1-1 for low-acuity complaints. Caregivers were generally supportive of alternative disposition programs, with some important caveats. Potential advantages of alternative dispositions included freeing up resources for more emergent cases, quicker access to care, and more cost-effective and patient-centered care. Caregivers had multiple concerns regarding the effects of alternative disposition programs, including timeliness in receiving care, capabilities of receiving sites (including pediatric expertise), and challenges to care coordination. Additional logistical concerns with alternative disposition programs for children included the safety of taxi services, the loss of parental autonomy, and the potential for inequitable implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers in our study generally supported alternative EMS dispositions for some children and identified multiple potential benefits of such programs for both children and the health care system. Caregivers were concerned about the safety and logistical details of how such programs would be implemented and wanted to retain final decision-making authority. Caregiver perspectives should be considered when designing and implementing alternative EMS disposition programs for children

Evaluation of a Selective Prehospital Pediatric Spinal Protection Protocol.

Background: Recent studies demonstrate an association between spinal immobilization and neck pain, increased use of radiographs, and increased admission rates for pediatric trauma patients. There is an increasing trend toward spinal protection protocols that limit the use of backboards in trauma patients. However, many of these protocols do not address the youngest patients. Objectives: The objective was to analyze whether implementation of a selective prehospital pediatric spinal protection protocol was associated with a reduction in spinal imaging, hospital admission rates, and Emergency Department (ED) length of stay (LOS). Methods: We conducted a single center retrospective chart review to assess the effect of implementing a new selective pediatric spinal immobilization protocol in an EMS system. Patients transported to the same center from a neighboring EMS jurisdiction without a protocol change were analyzed for comparison. We extracted data for all pediatric patients with trauma-related discharge diagnoses transported by EMS to a pediatric trauma center for one year before and after the implementation of the protocol. Results: There were 878 eligible trauma patients transported under the new protocol, compared to 782 transported prior to implementation. We did not find a significant difference in the percentage of trauma patients who received spinal imaging pre- and post-protocol change (20% vs. 18%, OR 0.84 [95% CI 0.66, 1.07]), but did observe a significant reduction in the proportion of trauma patients who were admitted to the hospital (25% vs. 18%, OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.52, 0.83]). This reduced admission rate was not observed in the neighboring jurisdiction. Conclusions: Implementation of a selective spinal immobilization protocol was associated with reduced admission rates, but did not significantly reduce rates of plain radiographs.</p

Caregiver Perceptions Regarding Alternative Emergency Medical Services Dispositions for Children: A Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis

Introduction: Emergency medical services (EMS) systems have developed alternative disposition processes for patients (including leaving the patient at the scene, using taxis, and transporting to clinics) vs taking patients directly to an emergency department (ED). Studies show that patients favorably support these alternative options but have not included the perspectives of caregivers of children. Our objective was to describe caregivers’ views about these alternative disposition processes and analyze whether caregiver support is associated with sociodemographic factors.Methods: We surveyed a convenience sample of caregivers in a pediatric ED. We asked caregivers 15 questions based on a previously validated survey. We then conducted logistic regressions to determine whether sociodemographic factors were associated with levels of support.Results: We enrolled 241 caregivers. The median age of their children was five years. The majority of respondents were non-Hispanic Black (57%) and had public insurance (65%). We found that a majority of respondents supported all alternative EMS disposition options. The overall level of agreement for survey questions ranged from 51-93%. We grouped questions by theme: non-transport; alternative destinations; communication with EMS physician; communication with primary care physician and sharing records; restricted EMS role; and shared decision-making. Regression analyses for each theme found that race/ethnicity, public insurance, and patient age were not significantly associated with the level of support.Conclusion: Most caregivers were supportive of alternative EMS disposition options for children with low-acuity complaints. Support did not vary significantly by respondent race/ethnicity, public insurance status, or patient age

Clinician and Caregiver Determinations of Acuity for Children Transported by Emergency Medical Services: A Prospective Observational Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Many Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies have developed alternative disposition processes for patients with nonemergency problems, but there is a lack of evidence demonstrating EMS clinicians can accurately determine acuity in pediatric patients. Our study objective was to determine EMS and other stakeholders\u27 ability to identify low acuity pediatric EMS patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of children transported to a pediatric emergency department by EMS. Acuity was defined using a composite measure that included data from the patient\u27s vital signs and examination, resources used (laboratory results, radiographs, etc), and disposition. For each patient, an EMS clinician, patient caregiver, ED nurse, and ED provider completed a survey as soon as possible after the patient\u27s arrival at the ED. The survey asked respondents 2 questions: to state their level of agreement that a patient was low acuity and could the patient have been managed by various alternative dispositions. For each respondent group, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for low acuity versus the composite measure. RESULTS: From August 2020 through September 2021, we approached 1,015 caregivers, of whom 996 (99.8%) agreed to participate and completed the survey. Survey completion varied between 78.7% and 84.1% for EMS and ED nurses and providers. The mean patient age was 7 years, 62.6% were non-Hispanic Black, and 60% were enrolled in public insurance programs. Of the 996 patient encounters, 33% were determined to be low acuity by the composite measure. The positive predictive value for EMS clinicians when identifying low acuity children was 0.60 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.58 to 0.67). The positive predictive value for ED nurses and providers was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.72) and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.74) respectively. The negative predictive value for EMS clinicians when identifying not low acuity children was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.67). The negative predictive value for ED nurses and providers was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.76) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.77) respectively. Caregivers had the lowest positive predictive value 0.34 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.40) but the highest negative predictive value 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.85). The EMS clinicians, ED nurses and providers were more likely than caregivers to think that a child with a low acuity complaint could have been safely managed by alternative disposition. CONCLUSION: All 4 groups studied had a limited ability to identify which children transported by EMS would have no emergency resource needs, and support for alternative disposition was limited. For children to be included in alternative disposition processes, novel triage tools, training, and oversight will be required to prevent undertriage

Emergency Medical Services Clinicians\u27 Perspectives on Pediatric Non-Transport

OBJECTIVES: Emergency medical services clinicians do not transport one-third of all children assessed, even without official pediatric non-transport protocols. Little is known about how EMS clinicians and caregivers decide not to transport a child. Our objectives were to describe how EMS clinicians currently decide whether or not to transport a child and identify barriers to and enablers of successfully implementing an EMS clinician-initiated pediatric non-transport protocol. METHODS: We conducted six virtual focus groups with EMS clinicians from the mid-Atlantic. A PhD trained facilitator moderated all groups using a semi-structured moderator guide. Multiple investigators independently coded a deidentified sample transcript. One team member then completed axial coding of the remaining transcripts. Thematic saturation was achieved. Clusters of similar codes were grouped into themes by consensus. RESULTS: We recruited 50 participants, of whom 70% were paramedics and 28% emergency medical technicians. There was agreement that caregivers often use 9-1-1 for low acuity complaints. Participants stated that non-transport usually occurs after shared decision-making between EMS clinicians and caregivers; EMS clinicians advise whether transport is necessary, but caregivers are responsible for making the final decision and signing refusal documentation. Subthemes for how non-transport decisions were made included the presence of agency protocols, caregiver preferences, absence of a guardian on the scene, EMS clinician variability, and distance to the nearest ED. Participants identified the following features that would enable successful implementation of an EMS clinician-initiated non-transport process: a user-friendly interface, clear protocol endpoints, the inclusion of vital sign parameters, resources to leave with caregivers, and optional direct medical oversight. CONCLUSIONS: EMS clinicians in our study agreed that non-transport is currently a caregiver decision, but noted a collaborative process of shared decision-making where EMS clinicians advise caregivers whether transport is indicated. Further research is needed to understand the safety of this practice. This study suggests there may be a need for EMS-initiated alternative disposition/non-transport protocols