{"title":"心理健康和成瘾系统的绩效测量:范围审查","authors":"Karen Urbanoski, Dakota Inglis","doi":"10.15288/jsads.2019.s18.114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate how performance is defined, conceptualized, and measured in mental health and addiction service systems around the world.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic scoping review of English-language scientific and gray literature published from 2005 to 2015. Eligible documents (n = 222) described performance measurement systems and outlined the theory or empirical evidence for indicators. We used a structured approach for data extraction and descriptive and thematic analysis, supplemented with stakeholder consultation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified seven themes in the literature: similarity in performance domains across frameworks; the ability of frameworks to inform care quality at client, program/facility, and system levels; the predominance of indicators of process and outcome, over structure; the lack of evidence on the links between domains and/or indicators; common, but limited, evaluation of family/caregiver involvement; equity as a cross-cutting domain of performance; and limited attention to performance measurement in peer support services.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The literature on performance measurement in mental health and addictions services is vast, and a wide variety of indicators is available to those designing a measurement system. Evaluations of commonly used performance indicators have yielded mixed evidence on their ability to discriminate high- and low-performing service providers, and their sensitivity to changes in policies and practices. As performance measurement efforts grow in scope and complexity, work will be needed to ensure that indicators are fair, appropriate, and suited to support quality improvement in services of different types.</p>","PeriodicalId":17103,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement","volume":"19 1","pages":"114-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6377020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance Measurement in Mental Health and Addictions Systems: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Karen Urbanoski, Dakota Inglis\",\"doi\":\"10.15288/jsads.2019.s18.114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate how performance is defined, conceptualized, and measured in mental health and addiction service systems around the world.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic scoping review of English-language scientific and gray literature published from 2005 to 2015. Eligible documents (n = 222) described performance measurement systems and outlined the theory or empirical evidence for indicators. We used a structured approach for data extraction and descriptive and thematic analysis, supplemented with stakeholder consultation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified seven themes in the literature: similarity in performance domains across frameworks; the ability of frameworks to inform care quality at client, program/facility, and system levels; the predominance of indicators of process and outcome, over structure; the lack of evidence on the links between domains and/or indicators; common, but limited, evaluation of family/caregiver involvement; equity as a cross-cutting domain of performance; and limited attention to performance measurement in peer support services.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The literature on performance measurement in mental health and addictions services is vast, and a wide variety of indicators is available to those designing a measurement system. Evaluations of commonly used performance indicators have yielded mixed evidence on their ability to discriminate high- and low-performing service providers, and their sensitivity to changes in policies and practices. As performance measurement efforts grow in scope and complexity, work will be needed to ensure that indicators are fair, appropriate, and suited to support quality improvement in services of different types.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"114-130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6377020/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsads.2019.s18.114\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsads.2019.s18.114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究的目的是评估如何在世界各地的心理健康和成瘾服务系统中定义、概念化和测量表现。方法:对2005 - 2015年发表的英文科学文献和灰色文献进行系统的范围综述。符合条件的文件(n = 222)描述了绩效测量系统,并概述了指标的理论或经验证据。我们采用结构化方法进行数据提取、描述性和专题分析,并辅以利益相关者咨询。结果:我们在文献中确定了七个主题:跨框架性能领域的相似性;框架在客户、项目/设施和系统层面通知护理质量的能力;过程和结果指标优于结构指标;缺乏关于领域和(或)指标之间联系的证据;常见但有限的家庭/照顾者参与评估;股权作为绩效的交叉领域;对同伴支持服务绩效评估的关注有限。结论:关于心理健康和成瘾服务的绩效测量的文献非常多,并且可供设计测量系统的人使用的指标种类繁多。对常用业绩指标的评价得出了不同的证据,证明这些指标有能力区分业绩高和低的服务提供者,以及它们对政策和做法变化的敏感性。随着绩效衡量工作的范围和复杂性不断扩大,将需要开展工作,以确保指标公平、适当,并适合于支持不同类型服务的质量改进。目的:Évaluer la farsion不允许进行数据采集、数据采集、数据采集、数据采集、数据采集、数据采集、数据采集、数据采集、数据采集、数据采集等。msamthode: 2005年和2015年,在美国和法国,在美国和非洲,在美国和非洲,在美国和非洲,在美国和非洲,在美国和非洲,在美国和非洲,在美国和非洲,在美国和非洲。可接受的文件(n = 222):与这些指标有关的文件:与这些指标有关的文件:与这些指标有关的文件:与这些指标有关的文件:与这些指标有关的文件:与这些指标有关的文件:与这些指标有关的文件:现有的实用方法,结构上的渡假渡假的渡假渡假的渡假渡假的渡假渡假的渡假渡假的渡假渡假的渡假渡假。* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *“系统能力”、“质量能力”、“组织能力”、“客户能力”、“组织能力”;在过程指标和过程指标方面的主导地位,以及在结构方面的主导地位;在所有的领域和所有的指标中,所有的领域和所有的数据都是相同的;L ' samuvaluation公社,mais limitsamuise, de L ' implied des families et des proches- aides;L '日新月异,日新月异;我们必须注意限制薪金薪金的衡量标准,以减少对某些人提供的服务。结论:综上所示,<s:1> <s:1> <s:1>精神系统与毒物系统的结合是衡量<s:1> <s:1> <s:1>精神系统与毒物系统之间关系的重要标准,是衡量<s:1> <s:1> <s:1>精神系统与毒物系统之间关系的重要指标。不确定的指标、不确定的指标、不确定的指标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标、不确定的目标。在不同的交换条件下,采用不同的交换条件,采用不同的交换条件,采用不同的交换条件,采用不同的交换条件,采用不同的交换条件,采用不同的交换条件,采用不同的交换条件。目的:评价cómo系统的定义、概念化和改进,以及adicción系统的服务质量和服务质量。msamodo: 2005-2015年,通过gris publicada en inglsamodo实现revisión sistemática文学平衡científica。可登记文件(n = 222)描述了系统的medición资料收集和系统的teoría资料收集和系统的empírica资料收集。利用结构机构extracción数据机构análisis对数据机构temático进行描述,与咨询机构和利益相关者进行补充。结果:文献中7种疾病的鉴别性:与马科斯病的病区相似;关于信息系统的信息能力:atención客户端,programa / instalación, los niveles del sistema;从结果和结构上看,指标优先于过程;从指标上看,证据确凿的证据不足;Evaluación común,有限责任人,de la participación de la familia / guidador;联合国领土横向领土平等;1 .请atención limited a la medición del rendimiento de los services de apoyo entre iguales。
Performance Measurement in Mental Health and Addictions Systems: A Scoping Review.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how performance is defined, conceptualized, and measured in mental health and addiction service systems around the world.
Method: We conducted a systematic scoping review of English-language scientific and gray literature published from 2005 to 2015. Eligible documents (n = 222) described performance measurement systems and outlined the theory or empirical evidence for indicators. We used a structured approach for data extraction and descriptive and thematic analysis, supplemented with stakeholder consultation.
Results: We identified seven themes in the literature: similarity in performance domains across frameworks; the ability of frameworks to inform care quality at client, program/facility, and system levels; the predominance of indicators of process and outcome, over structure; the lack of evidence on the links between domains and/or indicators; common, but limited, evaluation of family/caregiver involvement; equity as a cross-cutting domain of performance; and limited attention to performance measurement in peer support services.
Conclusions: The literature on performance measurement in mental health and addictions services is vast, and a wide variety of indicators is available to those designing a measurement system. Evaluations of commonly used performance indicators have yielded mixed evidence on their ability to discriminate high- and low-performing service providers, and their sensitivity to changes in policies and practices. As performance measurement efforts grow in scope and complexity, work will be needed to ensure that indicators are fair, appropriate, and suited to support quality improvement in services of different types.