The development of a set of quality indicators to evaluate services for people with depression

Worrall, Adrian; Rees, Anne; Richards, Anna; Rix, Susannah; Wright, Colin M.; Lelliott, Paul

doi:10.1080/09638230021000058238

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of included studies were obtained from the USA or the UK. All included articles [ 41 – 47 ] used a combination of literature review/development of quality indicators from clinical guidelines and some form of consensus technique (Delphi, Modified Delphi methodology, or ‘constituency approach’) to derive a final set of quality indicators. Out of seven studies included in this review, only one study reported development of quality indicators using a clinical practice guideline.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the studies was focused on assessing care for vulnerable elders with major depression or dysthymia in both outpatient and inpatient settings [ 41 ]. Five studies [ 42 , 44 – 47 ] aimed to develop a set of evidence-based indicators for mental health services, including those for depression and delivered within primary care settings for adults. Another study aimed to develop quality indicators for the management of major depressive disorders among adults in primary care settings [ 43 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality indicators for care of depression in primary care settings: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings.MethodsOvid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian’s ‘structure-process-outcome’ framework.ResultsThe search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients.ConclusionsThe identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0530-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality indicators for care of depression in primary care settings: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies on the development of objective measures of health care for patients with mental health problems postulated the provision of patient education as a crucial quality indicator [15,16]. Whereas the provision of information and advice to patients with a physical illness has been carefully scrutinized and found wanting [17,18], relatively little research has been conducted to address the actual provision of patient education in depression and anxiety care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How well do GPs fulfill their educator role in consultations for depression and anxiety?

Smolders

Laurant

Roberge

et al. 2008

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, while attempts have been made to develop quality indicators for primary mental health services in the UK, [1][2][3] there are few validated quality measures. 4 5 Those that are available tend to focus on clinical aspects of mental health care, such as counselling 6 and guidelines, 7 rather than the organisational delivery of services.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How do stakeholder groups vary in a Delphi technique about primary mental health care and what factors influence their ratings?

Campbell

Shield²,

Ae³

et al. 2004

Quality and Safety in Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: While mental health is a core part of primary care, there are few validated quality measures and little relevant internationally published research. Consensus panel methods are a useful means of developing quality measures where evidence is sparse and/or opinions are diverse. However, little is known about the dynamics of consensus techniques and the factors that influence the judgements and ratings of panels and individual panellists. Objectives: (1) To describe differences in panel ratings on the quality of primary mental health care services by patient, carer, professional and managerial panels within a Delphi procedure; and (2) to explore why different panels and panellists rate quality indicators of primary mental health care differently. Design: Two round postal Delphi technique and exploratory semi-structured interviews. Participants: 115 panellists across 11 panels. Eleven panellists were subsequently interviewed. Results: 87 of 334 indicators (26%) were rated face valid by all 11 panels. There was little disagreement within panel ratings but significant differences between panels. The GP panel rated the least number of indicators valid (n = 138, 41%) and carers the most (n = 304, 91%). The way in which panellists interpreted and conceptualised the indicators and their definition of quality of mental health care affected the way in which participants made their ratings. Conclusions: Stakeholders in primary mental health care have diverse views of quality of care and these differences translate into how they rate quality indicators. Exploratory interviews suggest that ratings are influenced by past experience, expectations, definitions of quality of care, and perceived power relationships between stakeholders.

show abstract

The development of a set of quality indicators to evaluate services for people with depression

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Quality indicators for care of depression in primary care settings: a systematic review

Quality indicators for care of depression in primary care settings: a systematic review

How well do GPs fulfill their educator role in consultations for depression and anxiety?

How do stakeholder groups vary in a Delphi technique about primary mental health care and what factors influence their ratings?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About