English | Français  

Home

Project Results

What is a Quality Measure?

Who is CEQM?

National Consensus

National Consensus Summary

Top 30 Quality Measures

Quality Measures Database

Priority Domains

Data Infrastructure

Measurement Implementation

Knowledge Transfer / Communication

Project Activities

Contact

Links



Staff/Partner log-in
  

Quality Measures Database

Detailed Results


Use checkboxes to select measures to print or display              
Mental Health Services Utilization Overall Rank: 79
Annual rates of use of mental health services per 100,000 population in the local health region, broken out by geography (e.g., rural/urban, health region), socio-demographics (e.g., age, ethnicity, gender), clinical conditions (e.g., depression) and provider setting (e.g., solo general practitioner practice).
Domain : Equity
Individuals get the care they need, without inappropriate bias based on their social status or other personal characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity or place of residence.
Additional Domain(s) : Acceptability, Patient-Centeredness
Rationale
This indicator addresses the fundamental issue of whether persons with mental illnesses are receiving mental health services and whether the system is responsive to various consumer populations. In managed care settings, penetration rates have been reported for Medicaid managed care ranging from 1% to 7%. Benchmarks clearly need to be established for various subpopulations. In non-managed care settings, similar benchmarks are needed, but comparisons across states may be confounded by the different types of populations for which a state mental health authority is responsible. However, comparisons across subpopulation areas would be informative.

Primary Reference
Lutterman T, Ganju V, Schacht L, Shaw R, Monihan K, et.al. (2003) Sixteen State Study on Mental Health Performance Measures. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 03-3835. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Level of Evidence
III: Preliminary research evidence only or evidence based on consensus opinion only.

Summarized CommentsAdd Comment
  • This is important and relevant, however uncertain about actionability because of lack of information systems, especially in solo practice.
  • These indicators are contextual and may bot be relevant at the health region level (might be suitable at other levels of aggregation).
  • This is only useful if baselines or comparators exist.
  • If there is no baseline data, then start to collect baseline data.
Variation in Results
Ratings-based Rank
Relevance 78
Actionability 84
Overall Importance 70
 
Stakeholder Rank
Academics 64
Clinicians 91
Consumers 92
Decision Makers 62
 
Special Group Rank
First Nations 86
Rural Areas 106
Federal Stakeholders 26
Regional Rank
BC AB SK MB ON QC NB NS PE NL YT NT NU
48 58 49 102 43 106 130 105 106 66 43 140 37
 
Overall Rank

      

79


SW02d (H201)

 
Distribution of Survey Respondent Ratings
Relevance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.53 0.53 0 3.05 3.27 7.74 19.45 41.75 23.68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Actionability
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.53 0.53 1.91 3.03 8.58 14.15 24.06 33.79 13.42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Overall Importance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.91 35.89 62.2
3 2 1

3 = can live without
2 = nice to have
1 = indispensable
Use checkboxes to select measures to print or display              

Copyright © 2006 CEQM and CARMHA • infoceqm-acmq.com

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official policies of Health Canada