BACKGROUND: Benchmarking of performance indicators in the mental health field is gaining currency in Australia as a strategy for improving service quality. AIM: To engage mental health service providers in the collection and evaluation of performance data. METHODS: Three separate rounds of data collection involving high secure, extended treatment, and medium secure services were carried out between 2003 and 2005. Twenty-five core indicators were identified and these were used to assess service inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. RESULTS: Differences in casemix, clinical practice and local business rules gave rise to variation in service performance. The benchmarking exercise led to the implementation of quality improvement initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible and useful to collect and evaluate performance data for mental health services. While services appear similar enough to benchmark, information related to both casemix and service characteristics needs to be included in benchmarking data to understand the factors that produce differences in service performance.
BACKGROUND: Benchmarking of performance indicators in the mental health field is gaining currency in Australia as a strategy for improving service quality. AIM: To engage mental health service providers in the collection and evaluation of performance data. METHODS: Three separate rounds of data collection involving high secure, extended treatment, and medium secure services were carried out between 2003 and 2005. Twenty-five core indicators were identified and these were used to assess service inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. RESULTS: Differences in casemix, clinical practice and local business rules gave rise to variation in service performance. The benchmarking exercise led to the implementation of quality improvement initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible and useful to collect and evaluate performance data for mental health services. While services appear similar enough to benchmark, information related to both casemix and service characteristics needs to be included in benchmarking data to understand the factors that produce differences in service performance.
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