| Behavioral Health Faces Challenges Collecting Performance Data | |
Behavioral healthcare providers are eager to create industry-wide core
performance measures. Individual facilities collect voluminous data within their
own organizations. However, a pilot test of key benchmarking indicators found
that substantial challenges remain in gathering, reporting, and comparing data
across systems. The National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems (NAPHS)
White Paper: Lessons Learned from Pilot Testing of the NAPHS Benchmarking
Indicators identified measures that hold great promise for the field. More
importantly, the participants in this 2000 pilot test demonstrated their
willingness to share this critical data. The project was coordinated by the
NAPHS Benchmarking Committee, chaired by NAPHS Immediate Past President Peter
Panzarino, M.D., chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Cedars Sinai
Medical Center in Los Angeles.
The pilot test, which focused on nine indicators chosen from an earlier
consensus-driven process of the NAPHS Benchmarking Committee, analyzed data from
48 organizations offering a total of 637,241 days of inpatient care; 601,595
days of residential care; and 161,993 days of partial hospital care. The
facilities represented all levels of care (including inpatient, residential,
partial hospitalization, and outpatient services) and all populations (including
child, adolescent, and adult). The indicators reviewed in the pilot test were:
-- adverse drug reactions
-- completed suicide
-- attempted suicide
-- restraint
-- seclusion
-- symptom/function measure
-- readmission
-- patient satisfaction
-- peer review
While no specific data is reported in WHITE PAPER: Lessons Learned from Pilot
Testing of the NAPHS Benchmarking Indicators, the document outlines challenges
identified in the testing phase. Commentary is provided on each of the
indicators in the pilot test.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FIELD
According to the White Paper, any data-collection effort -- and any national
core performance measures in particular -- must:
-- provide value in the data generated that is in proportion to the intensity of
the data collection effort. Allocation of limited resources needs to be directed
to the collection of the most important data.
-- focus on indicators that provide the most useful clinical and operational
data possible within the scope of the data currently available within
organizations.
-- recognize that definitional decisions have significant policy implications.
Widely diverse state, local, and national standards often lead organizations to
adopt similar -- but not identical -- definitions. This makes meaningful
data-collection extremely difficult -- and potentially costly. If organizations
use operational definitions that are different from the question asked, they are
not able (short of going to primary sources such as the patient record or
reviewing their entire data base and applying the study definitions) to report
the data.
An example of the challenges of definitional variations became clear in looking
at restraint/seclusion indicators. In this pilot test, there was great variation
in the definitions of restraint and seclusion, particularly as they relate to
children and adolescents. Reporting mechanisms appear to be in place in all
organizations for collecting data about restraint and seclusion. If the field
(in conjunction with regulatory and accrediting organizations) can agree on
consistent definitions, the possibility for developing meaningful benchmarks
seems to be very strong.
Similarly, the definition of attempted suicide used in this pilot test shows how
difficult it is to standardize definitions. Because of the wide variation in
incidences reported, we suspect that some organizations reported incidences that
were not of the severity of the operational definition used in the pilot
(actually or potentially life-threatening or resulted in the need for urgent
intervention).
According to the report, indicators with the most promise for benchmarking
across systems are those that have generally similar definitions, are collected
by a majority of sites, are retrievable, and do not require extensive
re-collection of data.
"As this pilot test demonstrates, there is high interest and commitment by
behavioral health providers to work towards core performance measures that will
help organizations improve the quality of care and be responsive to the needs of
those who seek mental health care," said NAPHS Executive Director Mark
Covall. "We have learned a great deal about the importance of focusing on
data that is relevant to clinical operations and collected in ways that conserve
limited resources. We look forward to sharing the knowledge we have gained about
what works and the challenges ahead. Our experience can help to inform other
national efforts to identify core performance measures and will help us to
improve our own association's data collection efforts," he said.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
NAPHS Immediate Past President Peter Panzarino, M.D., of Cedars Sinai Medical
Center, CA was the chair of the Benchmarking Committee which oversaw the pilot
test. Other committee members included James M. Cole, Devereux Foundation, PA;
Allen S. Daniels, Ed.D., University Managed Care/University Psychiatric
Services, OH; Naakesh A. Dewan, M.D., University Managed Care/University
Psychiatric Services, OH; Susan Eisen, Ph.D., McLean Hospital, MA; Frank
Ghinassi, Ph.D., Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic/University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA; Leonard S. Goldstein, M.D., Integrated Behavioral
Care, VA; Gay C. Hartigan, Liberty Management Group, NJ; John Lehnhoff, Ph.D.,
Richard Young Center, NE; Robert Mansfield, Carrier Foundation, NJ; William
Nolan, Ph.D., consultant, TN; Richard T. Palmisano, Brattleboro Retreat, VT;
Howard Waxman, Ph.D., Belmont Center for Comprehensive Treatment, PA; Martin
Schappell, Universal Health Services, PA; Kathleen McCann, R.N., D.N.Sc., and
Carole Szpak, NAPHS Staff Liaisons.
ORDERING INFORMATION
The WHITE PAPER: Lessons Learned from Pilot Testing of the NAPHS Benchmarking
Indicators, is $40"prepaid"from the National Association of
Psychiatric Health Systems, 325 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 625, Washington, DC,
20004. Call 202/393-6700, Ext. 15, for ordering information (Mastercard and Visa
accepted
---National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems
Back to The Science of Mental Health
Articles in The Science of Mental Health are written by the originating institution. This article was originally posted to Newswise. Newswise maintains a comprehensive database of news releases from top institutions engaged in scientific, medical, liberal arts and business research. The friendly interface allows you to search, browse or download any article or abstract.
