El uso de indicadores para la gestión de Servicios de Salud Mental (original) (raw)
Related papers
The use of indicators for the management of Mental Health Services
Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 2021
Objective: to identify indicators that can be used in the management of Mental Health Services. Method: an integrative review in which we adopted the Population, Concept, and Context strategy to formulate the following Guiding Question: “Which indicators can be used for the management of mental health services?”. Results: a total of 22 articles were included and divided into two main groups: countries with initial high income (54%) as well as low- and middle-income countries (46%). We identified 5 studies that had experienced the use of indicators, 5 studies that had reported partial implementation, 9 studies that did not report use or implementation, 1 study on the indicator selection process, 1 as an implementation pilot, and a final study with a discussion for implementation. High-income countries also find it difficult to implement mental health indicators. The main difficulties in adopting the use of indicators are lack of basic mental health services, financial resources, legi...
Measuring quality of mental health care: a review of initiatives and programs in selected countries
Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 2010
This review article presents a systematic review of grey literature describing current initiatives that assess the quality of mental health care in 12 countries, as collected by the International Initiative for Mental Health Leadership.There have been increased efforts in many countries to develop and implement mental health indicator schemes to measure and monitor the quality of mental health care at the national and subnational level. Most mental health indicator sets are part of larger health policy initiatives at the national and (or) provincial or state level, with indicators and domains regularly reviewed and revised. The indicator sets described in health care quality initiatives vary widely in their scope, intended use, and degree of development, and they often cut across a broad range of domains, reflecting not only a country's specific health system and how it is organized and structured but also the implementation of such schemes (that is, collection and analysis of d...
Developing mental health-care quality indicators: toward a common framework
International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care / ISQua, 2012
Objective. Inconsistent performance measurement schemes hinder attempts to make international comparisons about mental health-care quality. This report describes a project undertaken by an international collaborative group that aims to develop a common framework of measures that will allow for international comparisons of mental health system performance.
Bulletin of The World Health Organization, 2008
Mental health is a low priority in most countries around the world. Minimal research and resources have been invested in mental health at the national level. As a result, WHO has developed the Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS) to encourage countries to gather data and to re-evaluate their national mental health policy. This paper demonstrates the utility and limitations of WHO-AIMS by applying the model to four countries with different cultures, political histories and public health policies: Iraq, Japan, the Philippines and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. WHO-AIMS provides a useful model for analysing six domains: policy and legislative framework; mental health services; mental health in primary care; human resources; education of the public at large; and monitoring and research. This is especially important since most countries do not have experts in mental health policy or resources to design their own evaluation tools for mental health systems. Furthermore, WHO-AIMS provides a standardized database for crosscountry comparisons. However, limitations of the instrument include the neglect of the politics of mental health policy development, underestimation of the role of culture in mental health care utilization, and questionable measurement validity.
Development of Quality Indicators for Mental Healthcare in the Danube Region
Psychiatria Danubina
Background: Quality indicators are quality assurance instruments for the evaluation of mental healthcare systems. Quality indicators can be used to measure the effectiveness of mental healthcare structure and process reforms. This project aims to develop quality indicators for mental healthcare systems in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Serbia to provide monitoring instruments for the transformation of mental healthcare systems in these countries. Methods: Quality indicators for mental healthcare systems were developed in a systematic, multidisciplinary approach. A systematic literature study was conducted to identify quality indicators that are used internationally in mental healthcare. Retrieved quality indicators were systematically selected by means of defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality indicators were subsequently rated in a two-stage Delphi study for relevance, validity and feasibility (data availability and data collection effort). The Delphi panel included 22 individuals in the first round, and 18 individuals in the second and final round. Results: Overall, mental healthcare quality indicators were rated higher in relevance than in validity (Mean relevance=7.6, SD=0.8; Mean validity=7.1, SD=0.7). There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the four countries for relevance (X 2 (3)=3.581, p=0.310) and validity (X 2 (3)=1.145, p=0.766). For data availability, the appraisal of "YES" (data are available) ranged from 6% for "assisted housing" to 94% for "total beds for mental healthcare per 100,000 population" and "availability of mental health service facilities". Conclusion: Quality indicators were developed in a systematic and multidisciplinary development process. There was a broad consensus among mental healthcare experts from the participating countries in terms of relevance and validity of the proposed quality indicators. In a next step, the feasibility of these twenty-two indicators will be evaluated in a pilot study in the participating countries.
Health policy and planning, 2016
High-quality information to measure the need for, and the uptake, cost, quality and impact of care is essential in the pursuit of scaling up mental health care in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The aim of this study was to identify indicators for the measurement of effective coverage of mental health treatment. We conducted a two-round Delphi study (n = 93 experts from primarily LMIC countries Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda), in order to generate and prioritize a set of indicators. First, 52 unique indicators were generated (based on a total of 876 responses from participants). Second, the selected indicators were then scored for significance, relevance and feasibility. Mean priority scores were calculated per indicator (score range, 1-5). All 52 indicators had a weighted mean score that ranged from 3.20 for the lowest ranked to 4.27 for the highest ranked. The 15 highest ranked indicators cover the different domains of measuring effective mental ...
Performance indicators for public mental healthcare: a systematic international inventory
BMC Public Health, 2012
Background: The development and use of performance indicators (PI) in the field of public mental health care (PMHC) has increased rapidly in the last decade. To gain insight in the current state of PI for PMHC in nations and regions around the world, we conducted a structured review of publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals supplemented by a systematic inventory of PI published in policy documents by (non-) governmental organizations. Methods: Publications on PI for PMHC were identified through database-and internet searches. Final selection was based on review of the full content of the publications. Publications were ordered by nation or region and chronologically. Individual PI were classified by development method, assessment level, care domain, performance dimension, diagnostic focus, and data source. Finally, the evidence on feasibility, data reliability, and content-, criterion-, and construct validity of the PI was evaluated. Results: A total of 106 publications were included in the sample. The majority of the publications (n = 65) were peer-reviewed journal articles and 66 publications specifically dealt with performance of PMHC in the United States. The objectives of performance measurement vary widely from internal quality improvement to increasing transparency and accountability. The characteristics of 1480 unique PI were assessed. The majority of PI is based on stakeholder opinion, assesses care processes, is not specific to any diagnostic group, and utilizes administrative data sources. The targeted quality dimensions varied widely across and within nations depending on local professional or political definitions and interests. For all PI some evidence for the content validity and feasibility has been established. Data reliability, criterion-and construct validity have rarely been assessed. Only 18 publications on criterion validity were included. These show significant associations in the expected direction on the majority of PI, but mixed results on a noteworthy number of others. Conclusions: PI have been developed for a broad range of care levels, domains, and quality dimensions of PMHC. To ensure their usefulness for the measurement of PMHC performance and advancement of transparency, accountability and quality improvement in PMHC, future research should focus on assessment of the psychometric properties of PI.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2008
Mental health is a low priority in most countries around the world. Minimal research and resources have been invested in mental health at the national level. As a result, WHO has developed the Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS) to encourage countries to gather data and to re-evaluate their national mental health policy. This paper demonstrates the utility and limitations of WHO-AIMS by applying the model to four countries with different cultures, political histories and public health policies: Iraq, Japan, the Philippines and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. WHO-AIMS provides a useful model for analysing six domains: policy and legislative framework; mental health services; mental health in primary care; human resources; education of the public at large; and monitoring and research. This is especially important since most countries do not have experts in mental health policy or resources to design their own evaluation tools for mental health systems...