Surveying the Landscape of Quality-of-Care Measures for Mental and Substance Use Disorders.

IF 3.2
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) Pub Date : 2022-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-17 DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.202000913
Eric M Schmidt, Pingyang Liu, Ann Combs, Jodie Trafton, Steven Asch, Alex H S Harris
{"title":"Surveying the Landscape of Quality-of-Care Measures for Mental and Substance Use Disorders.","authors":"Eric M Schmidt,&nbsp;Pingyang Liu,&nbsp;Ann Combs,&nbsp;Jodie Trafton,&nbsp;Steven Asch,&nbsp;Alex H S Harris","doi":"10.1176/appi.ps.202000913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Quality measures that are used to evaluate health care services have a central role in monitoring and incentivizing quality improvement and the provision of evidence-based treatment. This systematic scan aimed to catalog quality-of-care measures for mental and substance use disorders and assess gaps and redundancies to inform efforts to develop and retire measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Quality measure inventories were analyzed from six organizations that evaluate health care quality in the United States. Measures were included if they were defined via symptoms or diagnoses of mental and substance use disorders or specialty treatments or treatment settings for adults.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 4,420 measures analyzed, 635 (14%) met inclusion criteria, and 376 unique quality-of-care measure constructs were cataloged and characterized. Symptoms or diagnoses of disorders were most commonly used to define measures (46%, N=172). Few measures were available for certain disorders (e.g., anxiety disorders), evidence-based treatments (e.g., psychotherapy), and quality domains (e.g., equity). Only one in four measures was endorsed by the National Quality Forum, which independently and critically evaluates quality measures. Among measures that were actively in use for national quality improvement initiatives (N=319), process measures (57%) were most common, followed by outcome measures (30%), the latter of which focused most often on experience of care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A vast landscape of mental and substance use disorder quality-of-care measures currently exists, and continued efforts to harmonize duplicative measures and to develop measures for underrepresented evidence-based treatments and quality domains are warranted. The authors recommend reinvesting in a national, centralized system for measure curation, with a stakeholder-centered process for independent measure review and endorsement.</p>","PeriodicalId":520759,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)","volume":" ","pages":"880-888"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.202000913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Quality measures that are used to evaluate health care services have a central role in monitoring and incentivizing quality improvement and the provision of evidence-based treatment. This systematic scan aimed to catalog quality-of-care measures for mental and substance use disorders and assess gaps and redundancies to inform efforts to develop and retire measures.

Methods: Quality measure inventories were analyzed from six organizations that evaluate health care quality in the United States. Measures were included if they were defined via symptoms or diagnoses of mental and substance use disorders or specialty treatments or treatment settings for adults.

Results: Of 4,420 measures analyzed, 635 (14%) met inclusion criteria, and 376 unique quality-of-care measure constructs were cataloged and characterized. Symptoms or diagnoses of disorders were most commonly used to define measures (46%, N=172). Few measures were available for certain disorders (e.g., anxiety disorders), evidence-based treatments (e.g., psychotherapy), and quality domains (e.g., equity). Only one in four measures was endorsed by the National Quality Forum, which independently and critically evaluates quality measures. Among measures that were actively in use for national quality improvement initiatives (N=319), process measures (57%) were most common, followed by outcome measures (30%), the latter of which focused most often on experience of care.

Conclusions: A vast landscape of mental and substance use disorder quality-of-care measures currently exists, and continued efforts to harmonize duplicative measures and to develop measures for underrepresented evidence-based treatments and quality domains are warranted. The authors recommend reinvesting in a national, centralized system for measure curation, with a stakeholder-centered process for independent measure review and endorsement.

调查精神和物质使用障碍的护理质量措施的景观。
目的:用于评估卫生保健服务的质量措施在监测和激励质量改进和提供循证治疗方面发挥着核心作用。这一系统性扫描旨在对精神和物质使用障碍的护理质量措施进行分类,并评估差距和冗余,以便为制定和取消措施的努力提供信息。方法:对美国六个评估卫生保健质量的组织的质量测量量表进行分析。如果这些措施是通过精神和物质使用障碍的症状或诊断或专业治疗或成人治疗环境来定义的,则包括在内。结果:在分析的4420个测量中,635个(14%)符合纳入标准,376个独特的护理质量测量结构被编目和表征。症状或疾病诊断最常用于定义测量(46%,N=172)。对于某些疾病(如焦虑症)、循证治疗(如心理治疗)和质量领域(如公平),几乎没有可用的措施。只有四分之一的措施得到了国家质量论坛(National Quality Forum)的认可,该论坛对质量措施进行独立和批判性的评估。在积极用于国家质量改进计划的措施中(N=319),过程措施(57%)是最常见的,其次是结果措施(30%),后者最关注护理经验。结论:目前存在大量的精神和物质使用障碍护理质量措施,有必要继续努力协调重复措施,并为代表性不足的循证治疗和质量领域制定措施。作者建议再投资于一个国家的、集中的措施管理系统,并以利益相关者为中心的过程进行独立的措施审查和认可。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信