Tim Coombs1, Monica Taylor, Jane Pirkis. 1. Training and Service Development, Australian Mental Health Outcomes and Classification Network, Parramatta, NSW, Australia. timcoombs1@bigpond.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the forensic mental health forums that were conducted as part of the National Mental Health Benchmarking Project (NMHBP). These forums encouraged participating organizations to compare their performance on a range of key performance indicators (KPIs) with that of their peers. METHOD: Four forensic mental health organizations took part in the NMHBP. Representatives from these organizations attended eight benchmarking forums at which they documented their performance against previously agreed KPIs. They also undertook three special projects which explored some of the factors that might explain inter-organizational variation in performance. RESULTS: The inter-organizational range for many of the indicators was substantial. Observing this led participants to conduct the special projects to explore three factors which might help explain the variability - seclusion practices, delivery of community mental health services, and provision of court liaison services. The process of conducting the special projects gave participants insights into the practices and structures employed by their counterparts, and provided them with some important lessons for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The forensic mental health benchmarking forums have demonstrated that benchmarking is feasible and likely to be useful in improving service performance and quality.
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the forensic mental health forums that were conducted as part of the National Mental Health Benchmarking Project (NMHBP). These forums encouraged participating organizations to compare their performance on a range of key performance indicators (KPIs) with that of their peers. METHOD: Four forensic mental health organizations took part in the NMHBP. Representatives from these organizations attended eight benchmarking forums at which they documented their performance against previously agreed KPIs. They also undertook three special projects which explored some of the factors that might explain inter-organizational variation in performance. RESULTS: The inter-organizational range for many of the indicators was substantial. Observing this led participants to conduct the special projects to explore three factors which might help explain the variability - seclusion practices, delivery of community mental health services, and provision of court liaison services. The process of conducting the special projects gave participants insights into the practices and structures employed by their counterparts, and provided them with some important lessons for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The forensic mental health benchmarking forums have demonstrated that benchmarking is feasible and likely to be useful in improving service performance and quality.