Aim 3A: Continually evaluate the flow of clients served per county

Report Goal: a. Continually evaluate the flow of clients served per county.

Report Description: Part of a larger effort to evaluate engagement and retention of clients in EBHV services

Demographics

plot of chunk Demographics plot of chunk Demographics plot of chunk Demographics plot of chunk Demographics plot of chunk Demographics

Number of Referral Records for Each County

(asterisks mark counties not funded for C1)

Response Frequency Response Frequency Response Frequency Response Frequency Response Frequency
Tulsa[#72] 6,266 Washington[#74] 813 Choctaw[#12] 461 Pawnee[#59] 197 Alfalfa[#2] * 26
Oklahoma[#55] 5,426 Carter[#10] 798 Beckham[#5] 456 Kiowa[#38] * 187 Osage[#57] * 25
Cleveland[#14] 2,717 Kay[#36] 765 Kingfisher[#37] 416 Greer[#28] * 183 Roger Mills[#65] * 20
Garfield[#24] 2,038 Muskogee[#51] 763 McClain[#44] * 391 Okfuskee[#54] * 180 Ellis[#23] * 13
Comanche[#16] 1,574 Grady[#26] 740 Marshall[#48] 352 Adair[#1] 175 Greer[#28] 6
Pottawatomie[#63] 1,464 Sequoyah[#68] 718 Woodward[#77] 349 Love[#43] * 150 Pushmataha[#64] 4
Payne[#60] 1,222 Okmulgee[#56] 666 Atoka[#3] 302 Noble[#52] * 146 Love[#43] 3
Logan[#42] 1,192 Cherokee[#11] 657 Johnston[#35] 294 Major[#47] * 142 Dewey[#22] * 2
Bryan[#7] 1,189 Custer[#20] 655 Blaine[#6] 287 Woods[#76] * 130 Grant[#27] 2
Creek[#19] 1,066 Garvin[#25] 641 Latimer[#39] * 287 NA[#NA] 126 McClain[#44] 2
Le Flore[#40] 1,066 Lincoln[#41] 627 Craig[#18] 285 Cotton[#17] * 123 Okfuskee[#54] 2
Canadian[#9] 1,044 Seminole[#67] 577 Hughes[#32] 282 Jefferson[#34] * 92 Cleveland[#99] 1
Pittsburg[#61] 1,017 Caddo[#8] 551 Murray[#50] 278 Harmon[#29] * 84 Harmon[#29] 1
Rogers[#66] 1,000 Mayes[#49] 519 Wagoner[#73] 271 Harper[#30] * 67 Haskell[#31] 1
Stephens[#69] 969 Delaware[#21] 494 Haskell[#31] * 225 Washita[#75] * 50 Jefferson[#34] 1
Jackson[#33] 948 Texas[#70] 479 Pushmataha[#64] * 202 Grant[#27] * 42 Kiowa[#38] 1
Ottawa[#58] 913 Pontotoc[#62] 473 Coal[#15] 201 NA[#99] 42 Latimer[#39] 1
McCurtain[#45] 817 McIntosh[#46] 465 Tillman[#71] * 198 Beaver[#4] * 36 Woods[#76] 1

Number of Referral Records for Each Clinic

(asterisks mark counties not funded for C1)

Response Frequency Response Frequency Response Frequency Response Frequency Response Frequency Response Frequency
TULSA C1[#72] 6,237 SALLISAW[#68] 718 VINITA[#18] 285 CORDELL[#75] * 49 MIDTOWN HEALTH CLINIC[#72] 6 CORDELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL[#75] * 1
CCHDOC[#55] 5,399 OKMULGEE[#56] 661 HOLDENVILLE[#32] 282 CUSHING[#60] 48 CLAYTON[#64] * 5 HEALDTON[#10] 1
NORMAN[#14] 2,709 TAHLEQUAH[#11] 657 SULPHUR[#50] 278 MEDFORD[#27] * 42 DRUMRIGHT[#19] 5 HOBART[#38] 1
ENID[#24] 2,038 PAULS VALLEY[#25] 638 WAGONER[#73] 249 BEAVER[#4] * 36 HENRYETTA[#56] 5 HOLLIS[#29] 1
LAWTON[#16] 1,574 CLINTON[#20] 633 WEWOKA[#67] 242 LAVERNE[#30] * 36 TCCHD-EXPO SQUARE[#72] 5 HOPE CENTER[#55] 1
SHAWNEE[#63] 1,464 CHANDLER[#41] 627 STIGLER[#31] * 225 BUFFALO[#30] * 31 ANTLERS[#64] 4 MARY MAHONEY[#55] 1
GUTHRIE[#42] 1,192 ANADARKO[#8] 551 COALGATE[#15] 201 ALFALFA[#2] * 26 BRISTOW[#19] 4 NSO NORTHWEST[#55] 1
DURANT[#7] 1,189 PRYOR[#49] 519 FREDERICK[#71] * 198 PAWHUSKA[#57] * 25 FAMILY CARE SERVICES[#74] 4 OKC SOONERSTART[#55] 1
STILLWATER[#60] 1,174 JAY[#21] 494 ANTLERS[#64] * 197 COWETA[#73] 22 VARIETY CARE MID-DEL[#55] 4 PHOCIS TEAM[#99] 1
POTEAU[#40] 1,066 GUYMON[#70] 479 HOBART[#38] * 187 ITSTESTING1[#99] 22 LINDSAY[#25] 3 QUERY ONLY[#99] 1
SAPULPA[#19] 1,057 ADA[#62] 473 MANGUM[#28] * 183 WEATHERFORD[#20] 22 MARIETTA[#43] 3 STIGLER[#31] 1
EL RENO[#9] 1,023 HUGO[#12] 461 OKEMAH[#54] * 180 YUKON[#9] 21 CCHDOC CAPITOL HILL[#55] 2 TCCHD-COLLINSVILLE[#72] 1
MCALESTER[#61] 1,017 CHECOTAH[#46] 459 STILWELL[#1] 175 ROGER MILLS CO. CHILDREN FIRST[#65] * 20 CCHDOC EAST[#55] 2 TCCHD Caring Van[#72] 1
CLAREMORE[#66] 1,000 ELK CITY[#5] 454 MARIETTA[#43] * 150 CHILDREN FIRST[#99] 17 CCHDOC TB[#55] 2 VARIETY CARE LAFAYETTE[#55] 1
DUNCAN[#69] 969 KINGFISHER[#37] 416 PERRY[#52] * 146 SHATTUCK[#23] * 13 DEWEY CO. CHILDREN FIRST[#22] * 2 VARIETY CARE STRAKA[#55] 1
ALTUS[#33] 948 PURCELL[#44] * 381 FAIRVIEW[#47] * 142 BLANCHARD[#44] * 10 ITSTESTING2[#99] 2 VARIETY[#55] 1
MIAMI[#58] 913 MADILL[#48] 352 ALVA[#76] * 130 BLACKWELL[#36] 8 MEDFORD[#27] 2 WAURIKA[#34] 1
IDABEL[#45] 817 WOODWARD[#77] 349 CLEVELAND[#59] 126 MOORE[#14] 8 NSO EAST[#55] 2 WILBURTON[#39] 1
BARTLESVILLE[#74] 809 SEMINOLE[#67] 335 NA[#NA] 126 TCCHD-JAMES GOODWIN[#72] 8 OKEMAH[#54] 2
ARDMORE[#10] 797 ATOKA[#3] 302 WALTERS[#17] * 123 TCCHD-SANDSPRINGS[#72] 8 PURCELL[#44] 2
MUSKOGEE[#51] 763 TISHOMINGO[#35] 294 WAURIKA[#34] * 92 CCHDOC WEST[#55] 7 SAYRE[#5] 2
PONCA CITY[#36] 757 WATONGA[#6] 287 HOLLIS[#29] * 84 EUFAULA[#46] 6 ALVA[#76] 1
CHICKASHA[#26] 740 WILBURTON[#39] * 287 PAWNEE[#59] 71 MANGUM[#28] 6 CCHDOC ROMINGER[#55] 1

Eligibility

plot of chunk Eligibility plot of chunk Eligibility

Missing Records

plot of chunk MissingRecords plot of chunk MissingRecords

Interview Completed

The following graphs describe the interview records by each nurse. A table displays the top open-ended responses why the potential client declined C1 services. The item stem is RF20. Was an interview ever completed with the referred individual about participating in Children First?

plot of chunk InterviewCompleted plot of chunk InterviewCompleted plot of chunk InterviewCompleted plot of chunk InterviewCompleted

Top Reasons Why Interview Was Not Completed

Response Frequency
pending 67
no respons 26
trans to p 19
unable to 14
no permiss 10
referred t 5
spoke with 4
could not 3
lives in o 3
mail only 3

Initial Visit

The following graphs describe the initial visit records by each nurse. A table displays the top open-ended responses why the potential client declined C1 services. The item stem is RF22. Was the initial home visit completed?

plot of chunk InitialVisit plot of chunk InitialVisit plot of chunk InitialVisit plot of chunk InitialVisit plot of chunk InitialVisit

Top Reasons Why Initial Visit Was Not Completed

Response Frequency
pending 76
no response to letters 14
trans to par-child connections 14
no permission to contact 8
not interested 7
no response to letter 6
unable to contact 6
lives in another county 4
lives out of service area 3
moved to tulsa 3

Clients Wants to Participate in C1

The following graphs describe the potential client's desire. A table displays the top open-ended responses why the potential client declined C1 services. The item stem is RF23. Did the referred individual ever want to participate in the Children First program?

plot of chunk C1Want plot of chunk C1Want plot of chunk C1Want plot of chunk C1Want

Top Reasons Why Parent Never Wanted to Participate in C1

Response Frequency
pending 4
not interested 3
3 2
see above 2
abortion 1
already had baby 1
already has a 1 year old child 1
already has nurse home visitor 1
attempted visit 1
av - expired past 28 wk 1

Questions

Unanswered Questions

  1. In the 'Number of People in Family' graph, are any values less than 2 a mistake?

Answered Questions

Session Information

For the sake of documentation and reproducibility, the current report was build on a system using the following software.

Report created by wbeasley at 2014-06-09, 10:47 -0500
R version 3.1.0 Patched (2014-05-24 r65737)
Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit)

locale:
[1] LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252  LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252    LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252
[4] LC_NUMERIC=C                           LC_TIME=English_United States.1252    

attached base packages:
[1] stats     graphics  grDevices utils     datasets  methods   base     

other attached packages:
[1] RODBC_1.3-10       stringr_0.6.2      dplyr_0.2          lubridate_1.3.3    ggplot2_1.0.0      RColorBrewer_1.0-5
[7] scales_0.2.4       plyr_1.8.1         knitr_1.6         

loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
 [1] assertthat_0.1   colorspace_1.2-4 digest_0.6.4     evaluate_0.5.5   formatR_0.10     grid_3.1.0      
 [7] gtable_0.1.2     labeling_0.2     magrittr_1.0.1   MASS_7.3-33      memoise_0.2.1    munsell_0.4.2   
[13] parallel_3.1.0   proto_0.3-10     Rcpp_0.11.1      reshape2_1.4     testit_0.3       tools_3.1.0