Changed the nugget on Ex5 feedback, incorporated language from Ex3 comment. I went with the double because I believe this is a key blind spot for the applicant and a major factor in the score for this probably also 2.1 and 2.2. It is not clear how the applicant deploys Lack of clear c(2) improvement priorities to partners and deployment / collaborators. For example, the use of the engagement Innovation Council (P.1b[2]) is not evident, and of suppliers, it is not clear how the service provider for partners, dialysis is included in the deployment of collaborators. opportunities for innovation and improvement The in the care of the diabetic/obese population. “innovation Deploying such priorities to partners and council” is collaborators may help the applicant achieve mentioned in its vision for the people of western Arizona. the profile (without a description) and never referenced again. How the applicant assesses its performance Issues b against that of local competitors is not evident. surrounding For example, it is not clear how the state CHC use of benchmarking consortium or other comparative competitive data resources inform the applicant about local data. competitors’ performance; nor is it clear how Competitive the applicant uses publicly reported data or performance social media reviews of local, private providers is addressed of similar health care services. Understanding in 4.1b, so I its performance relative to local competitors used that for may help the applicant maintain or increase the item market share and be successful in its tight reference. fiscal environment. It is not clear how the applicant selects The applicant a(2) comparative data and information—such as lists the comparative data from non-CHC providers in comparative
Changed the nugget on Ex5 feedback, incorporated language from Ex3 comment. I went with the double because I believe this is a key blind spot for the applicant and a major factor in the score for this probably also 2.1 and 2.2. It is not clear how the applicant deploys improvement priorities to partners and collaborators. For example, the use of the Innovation Council (P.1b[2]) is not evident, and it is not clear how the service provider for dialysis is included in the deployment of opportunities for innovation and improvement in the care of the diabetic/obese population. Deploying such priorities to partners and collaborators may help the applicant achieve its vision for the people of western Arizona. Lack of clear deployment / engagement of suppliers, partners, collaborators. The “innovation council” is mentioned in the profile (without a description) and never referenced again. c(2) How the applicant assesses its performance against that of local competitors is not evident. For example, it is not clear how the state CHC benchmarking consortium or other comparative data resources inform the applicant about local competitors’ performance; nor is it clear how the applicant uses publicly reported data or social media reviews of local, private providers of similar health care services. Understanding its performance relative to local competitors may help the applicant maintain or increase market share and be successful in its tight fiscal environment. Issues surrounding use of competitive data. Competitive performance is addressed in 4.1b, so I used that for the item reference. b It is not clear how the applicant selects comparative data and information—such as comparative data from non-CHC providers in The applicant lists the comparative a(2)
Arroyo_Fresco_Health_Center_Final-Feedback-Report-1.docx