20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing and Improving the Quality in Mental Health Services

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The mental health of the population consists of the three essential pillars of quality of life, economy, and society. Mental health services take care of the prevention and treatment of mental disorders and through them maintain, improve, and restore the mental health of the population. The purpose of this study is to describe the methodology for qualitative and quantitative evaluation and improvement of the mental health service system. Methods: This is a narrative review study that searches the literature to provide criteria, indicators, and methodology for evaluating and improving the quality of mental health services and the related qualitative and quantitative indicators. The bibliography was searched in popular databases PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, using the keywords “mental”, “health”, “quality”, “indicators”, alone or in combinations thereof. Results: Important quality indicators of mental health services have been collected and presented, and modified where appropriate. The definition of each indicator is presented here, alongside its method of calculation and importance. Each indicator belongs to one of the eight dimensions of quality assessment: (1) Suitability of services, (2) Accessibility of patients to services, (3) Acceptance of services by patients, (4) Ability of healthcare professionals to provide services, (5) Efficiency of health professionals and providers, (6) Continuity of service over time (ensuring therapeutic continuity), (7) Efficiency of health professionals and services, (8) Safety (for patients and for health professionals). Discussion/Conclusions: Accessibility and acceptability of service indicators are important for the attractiveness of services related to their use by the population. Profitability indicators are important economic indicators that affect the viability and sustainability of services, factors that are now taken into account in any health policy. All of the indicators mentioned are related to public health, affecting the quality of life, morbidity, mortality, and life expectancy, directly or indirectly. The systematic measurement and monitoring of indicators and the measurement and quantification of quality through them, are the basis for evidence-based health policy for improvement of the quality of mental health services.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global assessment of functioning. A modified scale.

          The modified Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale has more detailed criteria and a more structured scoring system than the original GAF. The two scales were compared for reliability and validity. Raters who had different training levels assigned hospital admission and discharge GAF scores from patient charts. Intraclass correlation coefficients for admission GAF scores were higher for raters who used the modified GAF (0.81), compared with raters who used the original GAF (0.62). Validity studies showed a high correlation (0.80) between the two sets of scores. The modified GAF also correlated well with Zung Depression scores (-0.73). The modified GAF may be particularly useful when interrater reliability needs to be maximum and/or when persons with varying skills and employment backgrounds--and without much GAF training--must rate patients. Because of the increased structure, the modified GAF may also be more resistant to rater bias.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Use Your Words Carefully: What Is a Chronic Disease?

            Overview One important element of effective communication is having a shared language or at least a shared understanding of the meaning of the central words used in a conversation. One term that is often used in discussions between patients and medical providers, in the academic literature, and in policy discussions, is “chronic disease.” There is not only tremendous variation in the diseases that are included under the umbrella term “chronic disease” but also variation in the time a disease must be present for something to be referred to as chronic. Furthermore, there is a move to include chronic conditions that are not indicators of disease, but long-standing functional disabilities, including developmental disorders and visual impairment (1–4). Within professional communities (i.e., medical, public health, academic, and policy), there is a large degree of variation in the use of the term chronic disease. For example, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) classify the following as chronic diseases: heart disease, stroke, cancer, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and arthritis (5). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have a more extensive list of 19 chronic conditions that includes Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and HIV, to name a few. This difference, within the Department of Health and Human Services alone, although not surprising to those in the field, has the potential to create confusion and misunderstanding when speaking in generalities about the impact of chronic disease, the cost of chronic disease, and overall measures to reduce chronic disease. The academic literature is not immune to the same kind of terminology variation. Differences in how “chronic disease” is used are largely dependent on the data used for the research and the discipline of the lead authors (i.e., public health and sociology). For example, one study, authored by individuals from Harvard Medical School, explored the prevalence of chronic disease using NHANES data (1999–2004). The study classifies the following as chronic diseases: cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, asthma, COPD, and previous cancer (6). Another academic study on chronic disease, authored by a geriatrician, classifies chronic illness as “conditions that last a year or more and require ongoing medical attention and/or limit activities of daily living” (7). The implication of a non-uniform use of the term is that a detailed read of each study is necessary to avoid erroneous conclusions regarding interventions necessary to reduce chronic disease burden for the individual and society. Popular Internet sources used by the general public to gather medical information use the terms “chronic disease” or “chronic condition” to mean slightly different things. For example, MedicineNet describes a chronic disease as, one lasting 3 months or more, by the definition of the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. Chronic diseases generally cannot be prevented by vaccines or cured by medication, nor do they just disappear (8). According to Wikipedia a chronic condition is, a human health condition or disease that is persistent or otherwise long-lasting in its effects or a disease that comes with time. The term chronic is often applied when the course of the disease lasts for more than three months. Common chronic diseases include arthritis, asthma, cancer, COPD, diabetes and viral diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS (9). Finally, the World Health Organization states that chronic diseases, are not passed from person to person. They are of long duration and generally slow progression. The four main types … are cardiovascular diseases (like heart attacks and stroke), cancers, chronic respiratory diseases (such as chronic obstructed pulmonary disease and asthma) and diabetes (10). The CDC’s Chronic Disease Overview omits chronic respiratory conditions, such as COPD and asthma, and makes no mention of duration of the disease or symptoms. MedicineNet’s definition does not list specific diseases, but does include the phrase “cannot be cured by medication.” Similar to MedicineNet, Wikipedia uses the 3-month time span as a marker, but does list specific diseases, including HIV. The WHO’s definition would eliminate HIV as a chronic disease as the virus is “passed from person to person.” The variation in meaning is amplified when viewed in an international context. For example, the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare includes the following as common features of chronic disease (11): complex causality, with multiple factors leading to their onset a long development period, for which there may be no symptoms a prolonged course of illness, perhaps leading to other health complications associated functional impairment or disability. Highlighted prominently in the information from the Australian government on chronic disease is the disease burden of mental illness and oral disease. Both of these conditions are often excluded from the chronic disease conversation in the United States (12, 13). Given the worldwide dissemination of medical information, the variation in public information is not only confusing on paper but also has real implications for those managing chronic diseases or conditions. It is possible that recommendations for chronic disease management are missed by individuals who do not know that the information applies to them; conversely, individuals may use the recommendation when it is not advisable to do so. For example, the CDC lists “cancer” as a chronic disease when, in fact, only certain types of cancers (i.e., multiple myeloma) can be viewed in terms of a chronic illness. Other types of cancers have little treatment options and prove fatal in the near term. Diseases Can Transition from Fatal to Chronic To the public health and medical community, transitions in disease states – from terminal diagnosis to chronic disease, or from acute to chronic – are not unexpected. For example, approximately 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV, with 50,000 new cases confirmed each year (14). Today, people with HIV are most often treated with once-a-day, fixed-dose pills, taken for the rest of his or her life. It is a vast improvement from early HIV treatment that involved a highly complex pill regimen, with difficult to manage side effects. The advances in HIV treatment have changed the life trajectory for a newly diagnosed HIV-positive individual. As of 2015, the lifespan of a person living with HIV was about the same as an individual not diagnosed with HIV (15–19). However, a search of news articles from two national news sources (New York Times and Washington Post) from 1/1/2015 to 5/1/2016 generated zero news articles containing the words “HIV, Chronic and Disease/Condition.” If the general public is relying on these types of news sources to understand the changing nature of chronic disease, it is understandable that HIV is not typically thought of in the same category as diabetes or COPD, and the stigma of HIV as a “death sentence” remains. It is reasonable to assume that the general public is unaware that HIV-positive individuals who have a greater life expectancy than someone diagnosed with diabetes. With the advances in HIV treatment, HIV is now a risk factor for other chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Patients, clinicians, public health professionals, and others interested in reducing the public health and economic burdens of chronic disease may benefit from viewing HIV not as a single chronic disease, but as a precursor to other chronic diseases (20–22). Looking to the Future The National Health Council reports that the United States bears a cumulative annual economic burden of $1.3 trillion from the seven most prevalent chronic conditions – cancer, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, heart disease, pulmonary conditions, and mental illness (23). This number does not include a whole host of other chronic conditions and diseases, such as HIV. If we want to reduce the health effects and fiscal burden of chronic disease, the conversation needs to change. Of course, we need to promote lifestyle changes and medical breakthroughs to reduce chronic disease, but we also need patients, providers, policymakers, and those promoting public discourse, to be precise in the words we use to describe health, disease, and illness. Rather than adhering to a specific list of diseases and a specified time period, we advocate for a simpler approach. According to Merriam Webster, “chronic” is something that is “continuing or occurring again and again for a long time.” Using this simpler view, we would exclude something like a broken leg as a chronic condition, but would include reoccurring lower back pain, or hormone-related migraine headaches, for example. Diseases, conditions, and syndromes that do not make the top seven list, but when taken together affect a large number of individuals who can be quite costly to manage and are justifiably emotionally and physically taxing for patients and their caregivers. By reframing the conversation, we are not advocating for drawing attention away from heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and COPD – the most commonly discussed chronic diseases – but we are in favor of bringing more diseases (and conditions) under the umbrella, with the hope of increasing awareness, sharing knowledge, and creating a larger community of individuals working toward improving the health of those who suffer from chronic health problems. Author Contributions SB: conceptualized paper topic, was the lead author of the manuscript, and finalized information for submission. SH: participated in the writing of the paper, provided a meticulous editing of the paper, and reviewing for overall impact. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

              Little is known about the quality of clinical care provided outside the hospital sector, despite the increasingly important role of clinical generalists working in primary care. In this study we aimed to summarise published evaluations of the quality of clinical care provided in general practice in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. A systematic review of published studies assessing the quality of clinical care in general practice for the period 1995-9. General practice based care in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Main outcome measures-Study design, sampling strategy and size, clinical conditions studied, quality of care attained for each condition (compared with explicit or implicit standards for the process of care), and country of origin for each study. Ninety papers fulfilled the entry criteria for the review, 80 from the UK, six from Australia, and four from New Zealand. Two thirds of the studies assessed care in self-selected practices and 20% of the studies were based in single practices. The majority (85.5%) examined the quality of care provided for chronic conditions including cardiovascular disease (22%), hypertension (14%), diabetes (14%), and asthma (13%). A further 12% and 2% examined preventive care and acute conditions, respectively. In almost all studies the processes of care did not attain the standards set out in national guidelines or those set by the researchers themselves. For example, in the highest achieving practices 49% of diabetic patients had had their fundii examined in the previous year and 47% of eligible patients had been prescribed beta blockers after an acute myocardial infarction. This study adopts an overview of the magnitude and the nature of clinical quality problems in general practice in three countries. Most of the studies in the systematic review come from the UK and the small number of papers from Australia and New Zealand make it more difficult to draw conclusions about the quality of care in these two countries. The review helps to identify deficiencies in the research, clinical and policy agendas in a part of the health care system where quality of care has been largely ignored to date. Further work is required to evaluate the quality of clinical care in a representative sample of the population, to identify the reasons for substandard care, and to test strategies to improve the clinical care provided in general practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                30 December 2019
                January 2020
                : 17
                : 1
                : 249
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Economics and Management, Open University of Cyprus, Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprus
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, Medical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
                [3 ]Mental Health Services, Athalassa Psychiatric Hospital, Nicosia, Cyprus
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4380-3036
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1802-5586
                Article
                ijerph-17-00249
                10.3390/ijerph17010249
                6982221
                31905840
                e37e58d4-b5e8-43d2-a2b8-fa887888d6c6
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 12 December 2019
                : 23 December 2019
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                mental health and quality,mental health services and effectiveness,psychiatric treatment,psychiatry,medicine,psychology,efficiency,sustainability

                Comments

                Comment on this article