BACKGROUND: The lack of a consistent model means that the quality and characteristics of memory services can vary greatly. Quality standards have been successfully applied in a range of healthcare settings which allow services to implement improvements where necessary. A nationally agreed set of quality standards would help fulfil this need for UK memory services. OBJECTIVES: To develop a set of standards for memory services to form the basis of a quality improvement initiative (Memory Services National Accreditation Programme [MSNAP]). METHOD: The standards development process involved five main elements: Literature review/content analysis; key stakeholder workshop; email and postal consultation; consensus meeting; and final consultation/obtaining endorsements. Thirteen memory services in the northwest of England participated in the pilot programme, during which the draft set of quality standards were applied through the processes of self review and peer review. RESULTS: The finalised version consisted of 148 quality standards categorised along the following domains: management; resources available to support assessment and diagnosis; assessment and diagnosis; and ongoing care management and follow-up. The pilot stage highlighted standards representing common areas where improvements had been made, such as ascertaining whether the patient wished to know their diagnosis, and areas where more attention was still required, for example surveying referrers, patients and carers about their experiences of the service. CONCLUSION: It was possible to develop and field test nationally agreed quality standards for memory services. We believe that by implementing MSNAP it will be possible to improve the quality of UK memory services.
BACKGROUND: The lack of a consistent model means that the quality and characteristics of memory services can vary greatly. Quality standards have been successfully applied in a range of healthcare settings which allow services to implement improvements where necessary. A nationally agreed set of quality standards would help fulfil this need for UK memory services. OBJECTIVES: To develop a set of standards for memory services to form the basis of a quality improvement initiative (Memory Services National Accreditation Programme [MSNAP]). METHOD: The standards development process involved five main elements: Literature review/content analysis; key stakeholder workshop; email and postal consultation; consensus meeting; and final consultation/obtaining endorsements. Thirteen memory services in the northwest of England participated in the pilot programme, during which the draft set of quality standards were applied through the processes of self review and peer review. RESULTS: The finalised version consisted of 148 quality standards categorised along the following domains: management; resources available to support assessment and diagnosis; assessment and diagnosis; and ongoing care management and follow-up. The pilot stage highlighted standards representing common areas where improvements had been made, such as ascertaining whether the patient wished to know their diagnosis, and areas where more attention was still required, for example surveying referrers, patients and carers about their experiences of the service. CONCLUSION: It was possible to develop and field test nationally agreed quality standards for memory services. We believe that by implementing MSNAP it will be possible to improve the quality of UK memory services.
Authors: Rosalind Raine; Caoimhe Nic a' Bháird; Penny Xanthopoulou; Isla Wallace; David Ardron; Miriam Harris; Julie Barber; Archie Prentice; Simon Gibbs; Michael King; Jane M Blazeby; Susan Michie; Anne Lanceley; Alex Clarke; Gill Livingston Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Emily Dodd; Richard Cheston; Tina Fear; Ellie Brown; Chris Fox; Clare Morley; Rosalyn Jefferies; Richard Gray Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: José M Menchón; Michael van Ameringen; Bernardo Dell'Osso; Damiaan Denys; Martijn Figee; Jon E Grant; Eric Hollander; Donatella Marazziti; Humberto Nicolini; Stefano Pallanti; Christian Ruck; Roseli Shavitt; Dan J Stein; Erik Andersson; Rajshekhar Bipeta; Danielle C Cath; Lynne Drummond; Jamie Feusner; Daniel A Geller; Georgi Hranov; Christine Lochner; Hisato Matsunaga; Randy E McCabe; Davis Mpavaenda; Takashi Nakamae; Richard O'Kearney; Massimo Pasquini; Ricardo Pérez Rivera; Michael Poyurovsky; Eva Real; Maria Conceição do Rosário; Noam Soreni; Richard P Swinson; Nienke Vulink; Joseph Zohar; Naomi Fineberg Journal: Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.812
Authors: Jessica Wright; Alexis Foster; Cindy Cooper; Kirsty Sprange; Stephen Walters; Katherine Berry; Esme Moniz-Cook; Amanda Loban; Tracey Anne Young; Claire Craig; Tom Dening; Ellen Lee; Julie Beresford-Dent; Benjamin John Thompson; Emma Young; Benjamin David Thomas; Gail Mountain Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Inga Mehrani; Nicole A Kochan; Min Yee Ong; John D Crawford; Sharon L Naismith; Perminder S Sachdev Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Els J Meeuwsen; René J F Melis; Geert C H M Van Der Aa; Gertie A M Golüke-Willemse; Benoit J M De Leest; Frank H J M Van Raak; Carla J M Schölzel-Dorenbos; Desiree C M Verheijen; Frans R J Verhey; Marieke C Visser; Claire A Wolfs; Eddy M M Adang; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-05-15