Dataset Information

Quality indicators for primary care mental health services.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

SUBMITTER: Shield T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1743692 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality indicators for primary care mental health services.

Shield T T Campbell S S Rogers A A Worrall A A Chew-Graham C C Gask L L

Quality & safety in health care 20030401 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement.<h4>Design</h4>Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire.<h4>Setting</h4>Geographical spread across Great Britain.<h4>Participants</h4>One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologi ...[more]

PMID: 12679505

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of the review was to synthesize evidence of barriers and facilitators to the integration of mental health services into PHC from existing literature. The structure of the review was guided by the SPIDER framework which involves the following: Sample or population of interest-primary care providers (PCPs); Phenomenon of Interest-integration of mental health services into primary health care (PHC); Design-influenced robustness and analysis of the study; Evaluation-outcomes included subjective outcomes (views and attitudes); and Research type-qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies.MethodsStudies that described mental health integration in PHC settings, involved primary care providers, and presented barriers/facilitators of mental health integration into PHC were included in the review. The sources of information included PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, the WHO website, and OpenGrey. Assessment of bias and quality was done using two separate tools: the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) qualitative checklist and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.ResultsTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria out of the 3353 search results. The most frequently reported barriers to integration of mental health services into PHC were (i) attitudes regarding program acceptability, appropriateness, and credibility; (ii) knowledge and skills; (iii) motivation to change; (iv) management and/or leadership; and (v) financial resources. In order to come up with an actionable approach to addressing the barriers, these factors were further analyzed along a behavior change theory.DiscussionWe have shown that the integration of mental health services into PHC has been carried out by various countries. The analysis from this review provides evidence to inform policy on the existing barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the mental health integration policy option. Not all databases may have been exhausted.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2016 (Registration Number: CRD42016052000 ) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews August 2017.

Project description:Background:The treatment gap for mental illness in Nigeria, as in other sub-Saharan countries, is estimated to be around 85%. There is need to prioritise mental health care in low and middle income countries by providing a strong body of evidence for effective services, particularly with a view to increasing international and government confidence in investment in scaling up appropriate services. This paper lays out the processes by which a programme to integrate evidence-based mental health care into primary care services in Nigeria was designed, including a research framework to provide evidence from a robust evaluation. Methods:This paper forms the first step in the overall process evaluation of the mhSUN intervention, where standard research practice indicates that the intervention, and its development, is clearly documented prior to subsequent evaluation. The report covers the period of programme development and evaluation design, and study site and design was chosen to allow generalisability and practical conclusions to be drawn for service development in Nigeria. In order to design an intervention that was informed by evidence and took into account local context and input of stakeholders, a structured process was followed, including: (1) Engagement of relevant stakeholders for information gathering and buy-in; (2) Literature review and gathering of pertinent evidence; (3) Situation analysis at a national and local level; (4) Model development (using Theory of Change); (5) Ongoing consultation, recognising the iterative nature of Theory of Change, and need for ongoing refinement of complex interventions. Results:The different sections of the structured approach resulted in outputs that built the necessary components (literature review, situation analysis) for informing the Theory of Change. A Theory of Change map is presented, which includes transparent documentation of the assumptions and logic behind the activities to drive the desired change. In addition, it documents the indicators necessary to measure fidelity and draw conclusions as to hypothesised effects of different mechanisms of action in subsequent evaluation. Conclusion:In addition to the details of ensuring robust evaluation design, there are a number of considerations that are particular to the context that must be taken into account in programme development, including the relationships between ultimate beneficiaries, implementers, host government and institutions, donors, and programme evaluators. Structured methods from existing frameworks can be drawn upon to use and collate relevant information to maximise the local applicability of a generic evidence base. Theory of Change, with its documented assumptions can form the basis of subsequent evaluation and iterative programme refinement, contributing to a more scientifically valid means of developing mental health programmes for scale up.

Project description:Communication between involved parties is essential to ensure coordinated and safe health care delivery. However, existing literature reveals that the information relayed in the referral process is seen as insufficient by the receivers. It is unknown how this insufficiency affects the quality of care, and valid performance measures to explore it are lacking. The aim of the present study was to develop quality indicators to detect the impact that the quality of referral letters from primary care to specialised mental health care has on the quality of mental health services.Using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, a systematic literature review and focus group interviews were conducted to define quality indicators for mental health care expected to be affected by the quality of referral information. Focus group participants included psychiatrists, psychologists, general practitioners, patient representatives and managers. The existing evidence and suggested indicators were presented to expert panels, who assessed the indicators by their validity, reliability, sensitivity and feasibility.Sixteen preliminary indicators emerged during the focus group interviews and literature review. The expert panels recommended four of the 16 indicators. The recommended indicators measure a) timely access, b) delay in the process of assessing the referral, c) delay in the onset of care and d) the appropriateness of the referral. Adjustment was necessary for five other indicators, and seven indicators were rejected because of expected confounding factors reducing their validity and sensitivity.The quality of information relayed in the referral process from primary care to specialised mental health care is expected to affect a wide range of dimensions defining high quality care. The expected importance of the referral process for ensuring 'timely access'-one of the six aims of high-quality health care defined by the Institute of Medicine-is highlighted. Exploring the underlying mechanisms for the potential impact of referral information on patient outcomes is recommended to enhance quality of care.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01374035 (28 April 2011).

Dataset Information

Quality indicators for primary care mental health services.

Publications

Quality indicators for primary care mental health services.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets