Performance measurement in mental health care: present situation and future possibilities

Abstract

This paper describes performance measurement and its indicators for mental health care services. Performance measurement can serve several goals such as accountability, quality improvement and performance management. For all three purposes structure, process and outcome indicators should be measured. Literature was retrieved from Medline and PsychInfo in order to see which performance indicators were used for the three purposes of performance measurement in mental health care. The indicators were classified in structure, process and outcome indicators. The results show no big differences in the indicators used among studies. Performance management is the performance measurement purpose most referred to, followed by accountability, and quality improvement. Outcome and process indicators are used most, structure indicators are in the minority. Several levels of measurement, that is national or service level, came forward in the literature review. To overcome misinterpretation of data and to be able to improve quality and manage performances, performance indicator sets should refer to structure, process and outcome. Indicators should be chosen carefully with the aim of the measurement taken into mind. Based on this review, a conceptual framework is presented to support managers in their decisions about which indictors can best be used for performance measurement. Additionally, a model that provides an understanding of the use of information gained by performance measurement is given.

Key performance indicators for mental health and substance use disorders: a literature review and discussion paper

“…In general, this study's results for MESUDS KPIs are in line with the relationships previously outlined by other studies evaluating KPIs for mental health -15 - (Baars et al, 2010;Lauriks et al, 2012). There are no major discrepancies in the indicators used; the majority of KPIs assess care processes and outcomes, are applicable to general diagnoses, and can be collected through administrative data (Baars et al, 2010;Lauriks et al, 2012). Although similar relationships have been identified, there are likely differences in the raw number classifications in Table 2 as compared to the similar analysis performed by Lauriks et al (Lauriks et al, 2012) for mental health indicators.…”

“…This highlights that lack of key accepted definitions is one of the reasons why KPI development for MESUDS lags behind other conditions (Addington et al, 2010;Baars et al, 2010;Kilbourne et al, 2010;Waraich et al, 2010). KPI targets for MESUDS continue to vary across the different systems, reflecting the respective local definitions and interests of the systems (Lauriks et al, 2012).…”

“…Alternatively, a system may choose to adapt KPIs utilized in another system to their own needs; however, this can be fraught with obstacles such as lack of sufficient fiscal, organisational, infrastructural and personnel resources to appropriately collect KPIs and ensure dissemination of findings (Garnick, Lee, Horgan, Acevedo, & Washington Circle Public, 2009). As the System progresses, there are ample literature resources providing structure and guidance for using more robust methods, which enhance KPI development through collaboration, applying pre-existing instruments and consulting with key stakeholders (Addington, Kyle, Desai, & Wang, 2010;Baars, Evers, Arntz, & van Merode, 2010;Lauriks et al, 2012;Lin & Durbin, 2008;Rush, Martin, Corea, & Rotondi, 2012).…”

Mental health in France, policies and actors: developing administrative knowledge in a segmented world

“…On the one hand, economic and financial factors have actually become central to the new approach, and on the other hand, as the players liable to circulate new knowledge are becoming increasingly numerous, this knowledge becomes increasingly heterogeneous. Contrary to what has been observed through the international literature (Baars et al ., ), few outcome indicators are included in the planning or the decision‐making process.…”

Análise envoltória de dados e análise de componentes principais: uma proposta de medição do desempenho de organizações hospitalares sob a perspectiva de Hospitais Universitários Federais do Brasil

“…Neste sentido, pode-se chamar a atenção para o fato de que o uso intensivo de mão de obra encontra-se dentre os aspectos marcantes ao longo deste processo de gestão, no que diz respeito a este setor (MATTEO, 2009;YOUNG et al, 2010 O cenário da gestão de desempenho encontra-se marcado pelo forte apoio e dependência em relação à disponibilidade de dados, fatos e informações, como base para os processos de tomada de decisão (BAARS et al, 2010 …”