CESSA Technology, Systems Integration & Data Management Subcommittee Meeting - Approved Minutes 4/20/2023

CESSA Subcommittee for Technology, Systems Integration & Data Management (TSIDM) and Protocols and Standards Joint Meeting

Approved by TSIDM Members 05/01/2023.  Approved by Protocols and Standards Members 05/04/2023.

April 20, 2023, 2:30 - 4:00 pm

https://uic.zoom.us/j/89906509851?pwd=UlllSlh0NTZFdVhUM3prbjd6alhRQT09

TSIDM Subcommittee members: Brent Reynolds, Cindy Barbera-Brelle, David Albert (Designee-Lee Ann Reinert), Richard Manthy, Alice Cary, Jim Kaitschuk, Ashley Thoele (Designee - Patrick Sennett)

Expert Consultant Group (ECG) members: Peter Eckart, Chris Baldwin

PSTSC Subcommittee members: Cindy Barbera-Brelle, Shelley Dallas, Brent Reynolds, David Albert, Ashley Thoele, Drew Hansen, Richard Manthy, Jim Kaitschuk, Alice Cary, Blanca Campos, Emily Miller, Erika L Freeman, Pooja Nagpal, Chris Huff, Curtis Harris

Expert Consultant Group (ECG) members: Lorrie Jones

Agenda

I. Call to order of Joint Committees: Roll calls and Introductions

II. Brief description of the work of the Protocol and Standards Subcommittee

III. Brief description of the work of the Technology, Systems Integration and Data Management Subcommittee

IV. Opportunity for collaboration: Data extraction from PSAPs on new dispatch decisions

V. Next meeting dates and next meeting agenda

VI. Public Comment

VII. Adjournment

The meeting was opened by Cindy Barbera-Brelle at 2:35

Roll call:

Present: Brent Reynolds, Cindy Barbera-Brelle, Matt Wells (Lee Ann Reinert), Shelley Dallas, Blanca Campos, Jim Kaitschuk

Present: Brent Reynolds, Cindy Barbera-Brelle, Jim Kaitschuk, Matt Wells (Lee Ann Reinert), Rick Manthy (joined later)

Approval of previous meeting minutes Protocols and Standards: Approved by all present

Approval of previous meeting minutes TSIDM: Approved by all present

Protocol and Standards Updates:

  • Interim Risk Level Matrix
    • Level 4 and 1 are set with dispatch response (LE or MCRT). Level 2 and 3 show middle of the road differences and have potential different dispatch needs and response times.
  • Developed and deployed Landscape Analysis Survey: PSAP specifics, Response times for MCRTs, different emergency response models in communities across the state
  • 3 major Emergency Medical Dispatch Providers meetings regarding IRLM - incorporating their incident codes mapped to the IRLM

TSIDM Updates:

  • Planned Collection Points
    • Data collection plan for aggregate statewide data and regional data
    • Sample reports
    • Benchmarks to measure system performance
    • Call transfer technology recommendation
    • Recommendations regarding phased implementation
  • Restated The Volume type and disposition of calls between 9-1-1, 9-8-8, and 590 providers. Proposed indicators:
    • Number and percentage of MH/BH crisis calls received by 9-1-1 meeting criteria for transfer to 988 transferred to 988
    • Number and percentage of MH/BH crisis calls received by 9-8-8 meeting criteria for transfer to 590 transferred to 590
    • Number and percentage of
  • Restated: The volume type and disposition of calls referred to community mental health providers but not served. Proposed indicators:
    • Number and percentage of MH/BH crisis calls to 9-1-1 meeting RAC criteria for 988 or MCRT referred to LE/EMS because recommended response type or time was not available
  • Restated: Information to improve the community mental health crisis response system including data from 9-1-1, 9-8-8, 590 and other providers
    • Data identified in answer to previous questions, while monitoring of trends over time
    • Coordination metrics
    • Improvement metrics
  • Plans moving forward
    • Approve draft metrics and sample reports for delivery to RACS
    • Discuss current and future systesm requirements
    • Approve draft recommendations for data monitoring approach for delivery to RACS
    • Vote on final system recommendations

Discussion

Lorrie Jones: How is this data reported? How are reports currently configured? Is the data available by codes?

Peter: The legislation envisioned some of the data coming from 911, some 988, but it did not state that it exists.

Shelley Dallas: Multifaceted. Our PSAP uses Powerphone and there is only one code. APCO uses a whole page of codes. Further on this may change. We don't have some of these codes - transfer to 988 etc., at this time. I would venture that most CAD systems would be able to pull a report based on how a call was initially dispatched.

Brent Reynolds: Depends is a great answer in many situations. CAD systems are different. This may require a PSAP to have a 3rd party to make some changes to the CAD set up. What we are challenged with is that we are in a situation where not every PSAP in the state is equal with technology, staffing, etc. It is a challenge to get cooperation to get them to even respond to a survey. The data that is gathered today may not cover all the data points we need. We may need neighbors helping neighbors to build into their CAD.

Shelley Dallas: This isn't just the protocols and the CAD system. Behind the scenes the CAD vendors will have to boil down the matrix level.

Peter: Is it correct to assume that PSAPs generally are pulling reports looking at any of this disposition data for their own management or quality improvement?

Brent Reynolds: That is a depends answer. In Glenview we dispatch for 19 different agencies. Each agency may ask for different data. In dispatch what we look for is time from call ringing to answer, to call processed (dispatch). We measure that for telecommunicator performance. I could go to another dispatch center and they may only do one annual report with limited information. It depends on the situation and the organization.

Shelley Dallas: For instance, Powerphone may have 80 different types of medical calls, a dispatcher would pull up 'chocking' and our CAD system would code 'medical'. Then dispatchers would want to know how many medical calls they dispatched each year.

Jim Kaitschuk: Risk 1 - 4 one of the elements of CESSA talks about if there are any criminal elements going on. Should that be one of the questions dispatch is asking?

Lorrie: That's a good question we haven't asked yet. One of the points of the legislation is to deter non-violent misdemeanors. I don't have an answer, but we can bring it back to Protocols and Standards.

Jim: What about threat to self of others? Are we (LE) supposed to respond to a suicide threat when there is no one else around?

Lorrie: That is where the co-responder model comes in.

Lorrie: What would you recommend as a process for getting some of this work done? Presumably we will have vendors to cross matching of codes.

 Shelley Dallas: It may require funding for some of these systems to have updated versions to comply. We first have to get in place the protocol vendors and CAD systems talking to each other. Upgrades at the PSAP level. Some CAD systems do share data across the state. First need to build out the protocols and see what that's going to look like. That will need to be upgraded in itself. Paper PSAPs need to be updated to CAD system.

 Brent Reynolds: There's a lot to this. Just like the resources that may be different, the ability to do reporting may be spotty at the beginning. I don't see it looking the same tomorrow as today as next year. It may be easier to report some of this through the EMS section. There's a lot in play to see how this unravels once we set the foundation.

Rick Manthy: Did we cover areas that do not have an EMD?

Lorrie: There are 11 counties that do not have one of the vendors. We will have to figure out a process with them. I think these counties will have to do the IRLM and code matching themselves. Some of them are moving towards getting them.

Rick: Maybe we can provide them with models to work off.

Peter: There is some question about how do you define 'appropriate coordination' and 'improvement' in the CESSA legislation. If you are trying to measure improvement, do these seem like good metrics?

 Cindy: There's no control over how many referrals you make. You get what you get. I don't know if I would put this in the category. A couple of them show an increase in numbers but will fluctuate.

 Peter: We tried to capture that with the 'monitoring trends over time.'

 Blanca Campos: For #4, is this something that is intended to be tracked by the actual 988 centers? This is very specific information that we do not have the capacity to pull at this moment.

 Peter: That data isn't available in any part of the system for the most part. The committee was looking at what was specifically in the legislation, but eventually if we really want to improve the system overall, we have to start getting data around satisfaction, resolution, referrals going out and received, follow up and other outcomes. This is 'eventually' we want to start looking at outcomes.

Next TSIDM meeting is May 1, 2023 at 2:30 pm.

Next Protocols and Standards meeting is May 4, 2023 at 2:30 pm.

Public Comment

No hands raised.

Brent Reynolds asks for motion to adjourn. So moved by Shelly Dallas. No opposition. Meeting adjourned at 3:42 pm.