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

Credentialing for Crisis Line Staff

Overall Rank: 104

Percent of telephone crisis line staff undergoing an initial credentialing and annual recredentialing process.

Domain : Emergency Services

A hospital room or mobile crisis response unit equipped for the reception and treatment of persons requiring immediate medical care.
Additional Domain(s) : Competence, Patients with Acute Conditions

Rationale

Standard Staff are well qualified and well-trained. All staff undergo an initial credentialing and annually recredentialing process which includes:
Licensure/certification verification.
History of licensure/certification loss
Graduation certification.
Specialty focus verification.
The recredentialling process considers data from clinical competency evaluations, consumer complaints, and supervision records.

Primary Reference

North Sound Regional Support Network. Telephone Crisis Response. Quality Management and Oversight Committee. Committee Meeting Packet. March 16, 2000. Retrieved on July 31, 2006 from: http://nsmha.org/PDFs/QMOC/2000/0300qmoc.pdf

Level of Evidence

III: Preliminary research evidence only or evidence based on consensus opinion only.

Summarized Comments

Add Comment

* Credentialing, including periodic review, is important for all PHC team members.
This is of the utmost importance. Annual recredentialling process is necessary so that knowledge is up to date and that the services of first line continuous to improve.

Variation in Results

Ratings-based Rank

Relevance	101
Actionability	97
Overall Importance	105

Stakeholder Rank

Academics	99
Clinicians	95
Consumers	99
Decision Makers	121

�

Special Group Rank

First Nations	116
Rural Areas	80
Federal Stakeholders	83

Regional Rank

BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT	NU
112	110	101	108	103	113	44	83	57	63	127	115	105

Overall Rank

104

SA18f (H589)

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