Facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measurement in primary mental health care Systematic review

University of Calgary, Psychiatry, Foothills Hospital,1403 29th St NW, Calgary AB T2N 2T9
Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien (Impact Factor: 1.34). 12/2010; 56(12):1322-31.
Source: PubMed


OBJECTIVE To identify facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measurement in primary mental healthcare as part of a large Canadian study (Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement) to identify and select key performances measures for quality improvement in primary mental health care.DATA SOURCES CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched, using various terms that represented the main concepts, for articles published in English between 1996 and 2005.STUDY SELECTION In consultation with a health sciences research librarian, the initial list of identified references was reduced to 702 abstracts, which were assessed for relevance by 2 coders using predetermined selection criteria. Following a consensus process, 34 articles were selected for inclusion in the analysis. An additional 106 citations were identified in the references of these articles, 14 of which were deemed relevant to this study, for a total of 57 empirical articles identified for review. Most articles described implementation of health care innovations and clinical practice guidelines, 5 focused on quality indicators, and 1 examined mental health indicators.SYNTHESIS Content analysis of the 57 articles identified 7 common categories of facilitators and barriers for implementing innovations, guidelines, and quality indicators: indicator characteristics, promotional strategies,implementation strategies, resources, individual-level factors, organizational-level factors, and external factors.Implementation studies in which these factors were addressed were more likely to achieve successful outcomes.CONCLUSION The overlap in facilitators and barriers across implementation of mental health indicators, healthcare innovations, and practice guidelines is not surprising, as they are often related. The overlap strengthens the findings of the limited number of studies of quality indicators. The Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement process for identification and selection of indicators has attended to some of these issues by using a rigorous scientific approach and by engaging a range of stakeholders in selecting and prioritizing the indicators.

Download full-text


Available from: Tania Embree,
  • Source
    • "To address this concern, participants recommended minimising response burden by only collecting data on a minimum set of indicators and by streamlining current data collection processes to avoid the collection of duplicate and unnecessary information. Minimising response burden has been identified as an effective strategy for facilitating health care personnel’s support and commitment for performance measurement in other health care settings [37-40]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A performance measurement system is planned for South African substance abuse treatment services. Provider-level barriers to implementing these systems have been identified in the United States, but little is known about the nature of these barriers in South Africa. This study explored the willingness of South African substance abuse treatment providers' to adopt a performance measurement system and perceived barriers to monitoring service quality that would need to be addressed during system development. Three focus group discussions were held with treatment providers from two of the nine provinces in South Africa. These providers represented the diverse spread of substance abuse treatment services available in the country. The final sample comprised 21 representatives from 12 treatment facilities: eight treatment centres in the Western Cape and four in KwaZulu-Natal. Content analysis was used to extract core themes from these discussions. Participants identified barriers to the monitoring of service quality that included outdated modes of collecting data, personnel who were already burdened by paperwork, lack of time to collect data, and limited skills to analyse and interpret data. Participants recommended that developers engage with service providers in a participatory manner to ensure that service providers are invested in the proposed performance measurement system. Findings show that substance abuse treatment providers are willing to adopt a performance measurement system and highlight several barriers that need to be addressed during system development in order to enhance the likelihood that this system will be successfully implemented.
    BMC Psychiatry 02/2014; 14(1):31. DOI:10.1186/1471-244X-14-31 · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main aim of this guidance of the European Psychiatric Association is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the quality of mental health services in Europe. The recommendations were derived from a systematic search of the best available evidence in the scientific literature, supplemented by information from documents retrieved upon reviewing the identified articles. While most recommendations could be based on empirical studies (although of varying quality), some had to be based on expert opinion alone, but were deemed necessary as well. Another limitation was that the wide variety of service models and service traditions for the mentally ill worldwide often made generalisations difficult. In spite of these limitations, we arrived at 30 recommendations covering structure, process and outcome quality both on a generic and a setting-specific level. Operationalisations for each recommendation with measures to be considered as denominators and numerators are given as well to suggest quality indicators for future benchmarking across European countries. Further pan-European research will need to show whether the implementation of this guidance will lead to improved quality of mental healthcare, and may help to develop useful country-specific cutoffs for the suggested quality indicators.
    European Psychiatry 02/2012; 27(2):87-113. DOI:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.12.001 · 3.44 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 07/2012; 63(7):720; author reply 720-1. DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.20120p720 · 2.41 Impact Factor
Show more