Development of quality indicators for mental healthcare in the danube region

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00023752%3A_____%2F18%3A43919422" target="_blank" >RIV/00023752:_____/18:43919422 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://www.hdbp.org/psychiatria_danubina/pdf/dnb_vol30_no2/dnb_vol30_no2_197.pdf" target="_blank" >http://www.hdbp.org/psychiatria_danubina/pdf/dnb_vol30_no2/dnb_vol30_no2_197.pdf</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.24869/psyd.2018.197" target="_blank" >10.24869/psyd.2018.197</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Development of quality indicators for mental healthcare in the danube region

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 (X2 (3)=3.581, p=0.310) and validity (X2 (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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Development of quality indicators for mental healthcare in the danube region

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 (X2 (3)=3.581, p=0.310) and validity (X2 (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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30215 - Psychiatry

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Psychiatria Danubina

ISSN

0353-5053

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

30

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

HR - Chorvatská republika

Počet stran výsledku

10

Strana od-do

197-206

Kód UT WoS článku

000435654600011

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85048689633