A regular source of friction is the process of quality assurance and state surveys. In the past, there was a lot of frustration over the lack of clear guidelines for surveyors on how to interpret the letter of the compliance statement. In a lot of cases, the lack of a piece of paper would significantly damage the results of a high quality program. The new BQIS, and the new survey process, is significantly improved. Providers are reporting that it is about quality and person-centeredness. I think everyone can get behind that process!
Although providers have copies of the survey instrument, and share the underlying philosophy of the survey, there is still the potential for interpretations of the process to lead to confusion or frustration. The way areound this is actually very simple: Have the QA director (or another agency representative) attend the same training at the same time as the surveyors. That way, all can benefit from the exchange of ideas and questions that arise. All parties want the same thing- an emphasis on best practices and quality services. When all are engaged in the process, and all understand the expectations, more resources can go toward innovation instead of revision.
I also believe that consumers absolutely must be a part of this process as well. Self-advocates and families generally know their rights, but not the full extent of what makes a good partner in a provider and what they should EXPECT, above and beyond personal rights assurances. With all of these pieces in place, a person with a disability knows what a provider should be doing, a provider knows what they should be doing, and the surveyor becomes a best-practice consultant.
Just a thought…