OBJECTIVE: Quality-improvement efforts are hindered by a lack of consensus on meaningful and feasible measures of care. The objective of this study was to develop a core set of quality measures for mental health and substance-related care that are meaningful to stakeholders, feasible to implement, and broadly representative of diverse dimensions of the mental health system. METHOD: A 12-member panel of stakeholders from national organizations evaluated 116 process measures in a 2-stage modified Delphi consensus development process. Drawing on a conceptual framework and literature review, panelists rated each measure on 7 domains using a 9-point scale (1 = best). Measures were then mapped to a framework of system dimensions to identify a core set with the highest ratings for system characteristics within each dimension. RESULTS: Twenty-eight measures were identified assessing treatment (12), access (2), assessment (2), continuity (4), coordination (2), prevention (1), and safety (5). Overall, mean ratings for meaningfulness were: clinical importance 2.29; perceived gap between actual and optimal care 2.59; association between improved performance and outcome 2.61. For feasibility, mean ratings were clarity of specifications 3.39; acceptability of data collection burden 4.77; and adequacy of case mix adjustment 4.20. The measures address a range of treatment modalities, clinical settings, diagnostic categories, vulnerable populations, and other dimensions of mental healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: A structured consensus process identified a core set of quality measures that are meaningful and feasible to multiple stakeholders, as well as broadly representative of the mental healthcare system. By yielding quantitative assessments of meaningfulness, feasibility and degree of consensus among stakeholders, these results can inform ongoing national efforts to adopt common quality measures for mental healthcare.
OBJECTIVE: Quality-improvement efforts are hindered by a lack of consensus on meaningful and feasible measures of care. The objective of this study was to develop a core set of quality measures for mental health and substance-related care that are meaningful to stakeholders, feasible to implement, and broadly representative of diverse dimensions of the mental health system. METHOD: A 12-member panel of stakeholders from national organizations evaluated 116 process measures in a 2-stage modified Delphi consensus development process. Drawing on a conceptual framework and literature review, panelists rated each measure on 7 domains using a 9-point scale (1 = best). Measures were then mapped to a framework of system dimensions to identify a core set with the highest ratings for system characteristics within each dimension. RESULTS: Twenty-eight measures were identified assessing treatment (12), access (2), assessment (2), continuity (4), coordination (2), prevention (1), and safety (5). Overall, mean ratings for meaningfulness were: clinical importance 2.29; perceived gap between actual and optimal care 2.59; association between improved performance and outcome 2.61. For feasibility, mean ratings were clarity of specifications 3.39; acceptability of data collection burden 4.77; and adequacy of case mix adjustment 4.20. The measures address a range of treatment modalities, clinical settings, diagnostic categories, vulnerable populations, and other dimensions of mental healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: A structured consensus process identified a core set of quality measures that are meaningful and feasible to multiple stakeholders, as well as broadly representative of the mental healthcare system. By yielding quantitative assessments of meaningfulness, feasibility and degree of consensus among stakeholders, these results can inform ongoing national efforts to adopt common quality measures for mental healthcare.
Authors: Steve Lauriks; Marcel Ca Buster; Matty As de Wit; Onyebuchi A Arah; Niek S Klazinga Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Christopher M Perlman; John P Hirdes; Howard Barbaree; Brant E Fries; Ian McKillop; John N Morris; Terry Rabinowitz Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 2.655