Meaning and barriers to quality care service provision in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: Qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

Abstract

BackgroundDefining quality in health presents many challenges. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defined quality clinical care as care that is equitable, timely, safe, efficient, effective and patient centred. However, it is not clear how different stakeholders within a child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) understand and/or apply this framework. This project aims to identify key stakeholders“ understanding of the meaning of quality in the context of CAMHS.MethodThe study sample comprised of three groups: (i) patients and carers, (ii) CAMHS clinical staff, and (iii) commissioners (Total N = 24). Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data and thematic analysis was applied to explore participant’s views on the meaning and measurement of quality and how these might reflect the IOM indicators and their relevance in CAMHS.ResultsAn initial barrier to implementing quality care in CAMHS was the difficulty and limited agreement in defining the meaning of quality care, its measurement and implementation for all participants. Clinical staff defined quality as personal values, a set of practical rules, or clinical discharge rates; while patients suggested being more involved in the decision-making process. Commissioners, while supportive of adequate safeguarding and patient satisfaction procedures, did not explicitly link their view on quality to commissioning guidelines. Identifying practical barriers to implementing quality care was easier for all interviewees and common themes included: lack of meaningful measures, recourses, accountability, and training. All interviewees considered the IOM six markers as comprehensive and relevant to CAMHS.ConclusionsNo respondent individually or within one stakeholder group identified more than a few of the indicators or barriers of a quality CAMHS service. However, the composite responses of the respondents enable us to develop a more complete picture of how to improve quality care in practice and guide future research in the area.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2080-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Situational analysis of service provision for adolescents with mental and neurological disorders in in two districts of Ghana

“…A call for intersectoral collaboration as a way to streamline services and efficacy has been proposed in previous studies and reviews [25,28]. The lack of a standardized protocol or tools for quality measurement can create confusion among providers, what stakeholders can expect from each provider and how caretakers or patients perceive as effective or efficient [22]. Educators involved in school health initiatives received no training in identifying atrisk students or those exhibiting symptoms of mental and neurological disorders, which were often defined as defiance or behavioural issues.…”

“…Continuity of care and follow-up by providers with their respective patients was considered appropriate and satisfactory by patients and primary caregivers. A patient-led treatment plan, that is meeting patients' or caregivers' expectations, however does not assist in determining overall quality [22]. Despite the overwhelming positive attitude of primary caregivers in the study, there is still a need to utilize meaningful, validated, and quantifiable tools for providers and policy makers to determine quality assurance [22].…”

“…This has consistent with previous literature citing a lack of services for those living outside of urban areas. Lack of resources, including staffing, transportation, and administrative tools, in the study area and in similar regions in Africa undermines providers' ability to manage large caseloads and provide high quality care to all of their clients [22,27].…”

Community stakeholders' perspectives on youth mental health in India: Problems, challenges and recommendations

“…Early interventions in psychoses has led to a growing worldwide interest in early and timely care for young people with all mental disorders (Birchwood & Singh, 2013;Cotton et al, 2016;Csillag et al, 2016;Jacobs, 2016;Malla et al, 2016;Nolin, Malla, Tibbo, Norman, & Abdel-Baki, 2016;Patton et al, 2016). Involving multiple stakeholders in youth mental health: teachers in schools/colleges, general practitioners, and various governmental and non-governmental organizations who work closely with the youth in the community is critical to this effort (Axelrod et al, 2002;Malla, Margoob, et al, 2019;Svirydzenka, Ronzoni, & Dogra, 2017). However, there is a dearth of published literature on assessing the views of diverse stakeholders on youth mental health in developing countries (broadly) and/or in India (more specifically).…”

Provider perceived barriers and facilitators to integrating routine outcome monitoring into practice in an urban community psychiatry clinic: A mixed‐methods quality improvement project

“…A recent comprehensive review classified barriers to ROM implementation in three categories: related to the patient/clinician (eg, concerns about confidentiality, beliefs that measures are no better than clinical judgement), organization (eg, a lack of training resources), and system (eg, norms around ROM, competing demands) 40 . More specifically, studies have identified barriers, including a lack of information technology, 41‐43 time burden, 42,44‐46 perceived lack of measure validity/relevance, 34,42,44,45,47,48 lack of leadership commitment, 42‐44,49 lack of training, 41,43,45,47,50 and fear of how outcomes might be used 42,44 …”