ServiceSource Comments on DSP Competencies

ServiceSource appreciated the opportunity to partner with DBHDS to pilot a revised version of the competency checklist.  Our staff comments below are based on that pilot experience as well as the posted new versions of the checklist and competency protocol.

The process has been improved

• The new version of the checklist is shorter and more concise.  We believe that no important subject matter was lost in condensing into this revision.  As an example of the efficiency achieved, the same core group of employees who piloted this checklist had spent almost three days in 2018 reviewing and completing the previous version of competencies while this new draft version was completed by the group in 2019 within three hours. 
• A specific improvement is the “Observation (example indicators)” column included in the new draft checklist.  This helped those piloting the checklist to ensure that they were interpreting the competency correctly and consequently  sped up the process since it eliminated the need to brainstorm when and how each competency was demonstrated.

  Suggestions for further improvement

• An electronic version of the checklist would be more useful for several reasons, including:
• • The physical space for comments varies in the new paper draft version.  There are times when we piloted it that we wanted more space and there were other times when we needed less.  An electronic version would allow expansion of space only when needed, resulting in an efficient final document that could easily be uploaded.

• • This new draft has unfortunately NOT reduced the voluminous requirement of initialing and dating by the supervisor in each section, along with signatures at the end.  We propose that electronic signatures at the end of the checklist document  should be sufficient and we could eliminate the requirement for initials and dates in each section.

 Suggestions for change (specific to checklist)

• There are three sections that we propose should be considered optional and not be required for all DSPs or even all supervisors.  In these examples of specific job duties, we contend that these requirements would NOT necessarily apply to all staff but might rather be reserved (and specified in job descriptions) to only staff who are assigned to provide these specialized supports:

• • 3.2 “Locates medications and side effect information for all individuals supported, provides safe and accurate delivery of medication; reports unusual reactions, responses and behavior to the appropriate health professional immediately”
    • While the last phrase of that competency (reporting unusual reactions) applies to all staff, there are some staff who never deliver medications so the initial phrases about locating medications and side effect information as well as the actual delivery of medications should NOT pertain to all DSPs and supervisors.

• • 3.3 “Correctly follows nutrition plans and meal preparation guidelines including the use of thickeners, special textured food preparation such as pureed and chopped consistencies and uses the correct utensils for all individuals supported”. 
    • We again propose that not all DSPs and supervisors support individuals requiring this level of support.  Even with the number of individuals discharged from Training Centers, these specific meal preparation guidelines are limited in applicability and providers should be able to identify (by job descriptions) which DSPs have both this support delivery (and therefore competency) requirement.

•  3.4 “Operates and maintains adaptive, orthopedic, and communicative equipment correctly”
  • We offer the same comment as above: These competencies are essential when needed in specific job descriptions to support specific individuals with these support needs but should not be a requirement for all DSPs and supervisors.