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              
Coordination Protocols for Emergency Services Overall Rank: 33
Liaison protocols/memorandum of understanding exist to coordinate emergency service provision between primary mental health care services, specialized mental health services, crisis lines, hospital emergency departments, and the police.
Domain : Shared Care
Collaboration between providers from primary health care and mental health disciplines who share the responsibility for the care an individual receives.
Additional Domain(s) : Continuity, Emergency Services
Rationale
The capacity to provide a crisis and emergency response is an integral part of a mental health services continuum of care.
A Crisis Response Service (CRS) links children, youth and adults in acute crises with the appropriate community resources and/or establishes an immediate communication link and supportive intervention for children, youth and adults experiencing critical or emergency mental health problems. This service provides appropriate, timely, and well coordinated responses to those persons in crisis. With their specialized training and experience, CRS personnel provide the necessary support and interventions to individuals and/or their significant others, and consultation to community providers, mental health staff, family practitioners, police, etc.
Within the mental health environment, crises manifest themselves in many ways, ranging from an acute occurrence of mental illnesses to the emotional consequences of the loss of housing and support networks. A crisis occurs when an individuals usual coping strategies are suddenly overwhelmed and the individual requires an immediate response.
Not all crises result in mental health emergencies. However, when an individuals coping strategies are so overwhelmed and there is potential for harm to self or others, or the individuals well-being is drastically threatened, an immediate emergency response is required. A CRS must have skilled professional staff who are able to differentiate between true emergencies which must be seen immediately in order to be treated and stabilized, and those crises which may be appropriately handled in other ways. The availability of experienced professional staff to respond to the first telephone or walk-in contacts made to the service is crucial to effective management and control of
the crisis. Critical information is gathered and important questions are asked which assists in the initial triage. It is also an opportunity for the CRS staff to inform referring agents about the individuals clinical presentation and about the services recommendations.
According to Best practices in Mental Health reform (1997), the range of functions provided by a CRS includes:
1) Stabilizing individuals in crisis in order to assist them to return to their pre-crisis level of functioning;
2) Assisting individuals and members of their natural support systems to resolve
situations that may have precipitated or contributed to the crisis; and,
3) Linking individuals with services and supports in the community in order to meet their ongoing community support needs.
4) Linking individuals to appropriate follow-up mental health care.
Primary Reference
Standards for Mental Health Services in Nova Scotia. Revised. 2004. Retrived August 1, 2006 from: www.gov.ns.ca/heal/downloads/Standards.pdf
Level of Evidence
III: Preliminary research evidence only or evidence based on consensus opinion only.

Summarized CommentsAdd Comment
  • * Existence of such protocols is insufficient, knowledge and use of these is also important
  • * Protocols should involve other providers, e.g. peer support or customer service units, club houses, schools, private practitioners.
Variation in Results
Ratings-based Rank
Relevance 25
Actionability 43
Overall Importance 38
 
Stakeholder Rank
Academics 41
Clinicians 36
Consumers 33
Decision Makers 32
 
Special Group Rank
First Nations 53
Rural Areas 59
Federal Stakeholders 58
Regional Rank
BC AB SK MB ON QC NB NS PE NL YT NT NU
60 73 43 45 27 5 68 55 50 27 73 101 105
 
Overall Rank

      

33


SA17h (H147)

 
Distribution of Survey Respondent Ratings
Relevance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.54 0.54 0.36 0.72 0.54 3.87 18.46 43.98 31.01
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Actionability
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.62 0 0.54 2.64 3.62 10.91 21.91 36.21 22.55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Overall Importance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.68 20.62 77.7
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