Quality Measures Database

Keywords

Domains

Process
	Acceptability
	Accessibility
	Appropriateness
	Competence
	Continuity
	Effectiveness
	Efficiency
	Safety
	Comprehensiveness
	Patient-Centeredness
	Legal

Outcome
	Health Conditions
	Human Function
	Well-Being
	Deaths
	Service Outputs
	Satisfaction
	Impact on Society

Structure
	Physical Infrastructure
	Personnel Management
	Information Management
	Financial Management
	Quality and Safety

Non-Medical Determinants of Health
	Health Behaviors
	Living and Working Conditions
	Personal Resources
	Environmental Factors
	Health Literacy

Equity
	Equity

Specific Conditions
	Comorbid Conditions
	Chronic Conditions
	Acute Conditions
	Substance Abuse
	Anxiety Disorders
	Somatoform Disorders
	Sleep Disorders
	Eating Disorders
	Personality Disorders
	Mood Disorders
	Psychosis
	Impulse Control Disorders
	Elderly
	Reproductive Mental Health Disorders

Special Groups
	Ethnic / Cultural Minorities
	People Who Live in Rural Areas
	People with a Family History of a Mental Health Condition
	Social Service Welfare Recipients
	Homeless or Itinerant
	Unemployed
	Aboriginal
	Seniors in Facilities
	Recent Refugees
	Immigrants
	Residents of Correctional Institutions
	Inner City Residents
	Speakers of English as a Second Language

Age Groups
	Elderly
	Adult
	Youth
	Children
	Children

Gender Groups
	Women
	Men
	Gender Identities Other Than Men or Women

Interventions
	Medication
	Psychotherapy
	Peer Support
	Prevention
	Other Somatic Treatments
	Early Detection
	Health Promotion
	Family Involvement
	Group Treatment
	Self-Management Support
	Rehabilitation
	Physical Health Intervention

Clinical Setting
	Shared Care
	Emergency Services
	School-based Mental Health Services
	Work-based Mental Health Services
	Outreach Services
	Solo Practitioner
	Group Family Practitioner
	Community Health Care Centre
	Walk in Clinics

Level of Evidence

	I	Consistently higher quality studies specifically focused on primary mental health care.
	II	Less rigorous studies specifically focused on primary mental health care or extrapolated from higher quality studies from secondary mental health care.
	III	Preliminary research evidence only or evidence based on consensus opinion only.
	IV	Evidence based on individual expert opinion.
	V	Validated scale: Research has been conducted to determine it has at least some properties associated with a high quality scale
	VI	Non-validated scale: Research regarding the quality of the scale has not been conducted.

Measure Ranking

From To

Detailed Results

Use checkboxes to select measures to print or display

Use of quality of access rating scales

Overall Rank: 119

Use of a standardized but brief scale (i.e., the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) access subscale) to measure access to primary health care.

Domain : Accessibility

Clients/patients are able to obtain care and services at the right place and the right time, based on their respective needs. Accessibility would include such things as waiting times, physician availability, geographical proximity, extended service hours, etc.
Additional Domain(s) : Acceptability, Continuity

Rationale

The Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) instruments were developed by The Johns Hopkins Primary Care Policy Center for Underserved Populations were designed to measure the extent and quality of primary care services at a provider setting designated by consumers as their main source of general care and consistent with a focus on attributes of primary care that have
been demonstrated to produce better outcomes of care at lower costs.The PCAT access sub-scale measures the ability for urgent patients to access a provider/team who knows the patient in a timely and convenient manner. The scale also measures whether patients can obtain information or care from their regular provider/team for urgent problems occurring during office hours, outside office hours, and on weekends.

Primary Reference

Shi, Leiyu DrPH, MBA; Starfield, Barbara MD, MPH; Xu, Jiahong MPH, MS
Journal of Family Practice. 50(2):161, February 2001

Level of Evidence

V: Validated scale: Research has been conducted to determine it has at least some properties associated with a high quality scale

Summarized Comments

Add Comment

This tool allows an estimate of lack of capacity to satisfy consumer demand for services
I was impresssed when reading the accompanying literature re: this tool; Hours practice is open etc. are actionable
Use of the tool is actionable, but use of an assessment tool will only diagnose an access issue, not resolve it.
This needs to be given to the practice population not to those in the office because access problem is a major for those without a PHC provider

Variation in Results

Ratings-based Rank

Relevance	118
Actionability	114
Overall Importance	122

Stakeholder Rank

Academics	116
Clinicians	132
Consumers	121
Decision Makers	102

�

Special Group Rank

First Nations	152
Rural Areas	141
Federal Stakeholders	109

Regional Rank

BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT	NU
122	81	134	89	141	98	84	113	123	133	157	74	105

Overall Rank

119

SW01a (H314)

Distribution of Survey Respondent Ratings

Relevance

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Low

High

Actionability

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Low

High

Overall Importance

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

3 = can live without
2 = nice to have
1 = indispensable

Use checkboxes to select measures to print or display

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