Factors associated with the impact of quality improvement collaboratives in mental healthcare: An exploratory study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together groups of healthcare professionals to work in a structured manner to improve the quality of healthcare delivery within particular domains. We explored which characteristics of the composition, participation, functioning, and organization of these collaboratives related to changes in the healthcare for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, or schizophrenia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied three QICs involving 29 quality improvement (QI) teams representing a number of mental healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. The aims of the three QICs were the implementation of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in the domains of anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia, respectively. We used eight performance indicators to assess the impact of the QI teams on self-reported patient outcomes and process of care outcomes for 1,346 patients. The QI team members completed a questionnaire on the characteristics of the composition, participation in a national program, functioning, and organizational context for their teams. It was expected that an association would be found between these team characteristics and the quality of care for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No consistent patterns of association emerged. Theory-based factors did not perform better than practice-based factors. However, QI teams that received support from their management and both active and inspirational team leadership showed better results. Rather surprisingly, a lower average level of education among the team members was associated with better results, although less consistently than the management and leadership characteristics. Team views with regard to the QI goals of the team and attitudes towards multidisciplinary practice guidelines did not correlate with team success.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>No general conclusions about the impact of the characteristics of QI teams on the quality of healthcare can be drawn, but support of the management and active, inspirational team leadership appear to be important. Not only patient outcomes but also the performance indicators of monitoring and screening/assessment showed improvement in many but not all of the QI teams with such characteristics. More studies are needed to identify factors associated with the impact of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in mental healthcare.</p

A National Quality Improvement Collaborative for the clinical use of outcome measurement in specialised mental healthcare: results from a parallel group design and a nested cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Although the importance and advantages of measurement-based care in mental healthcare are well established, implementation in daily practice is complex and far from optimal. AIMS: To accelerate the implementation of outcome measurement in routine clinical practice, a government-sponsored National Quality Improvement Collaborative was initiated in Dutch-specialised mental healthcare. METHOD: To investigate the effects of this initiative, we combined a matched-pair parallel group design (21 teams) with a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) (6 teams). At the beginning and end, the primary outcome 'actual use and perceived clinical utility of outcome measurement' was assessed. RESULTS: In both designs, intervention teams demonstrated a significant higher level of implementation of outcome measurement than control teams. Overall effects were large (parallel group d=0.99; RCT d=1.25). CONCLUSIONS: The National Collaborative successfully improved the use of outcome measurement in routine clinical practice. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license

Delivering stepped care for depression in general practice:Results of a survey amongst general practitioners in the Netherlands

<p>Background: Revised guidelines for depression recommend a stepped care approach. Little is known about the implementation of the stepped care model by general practitioners (GPs) in daily practice.</p><p>Objectives: To evaluate the performance of Dutch GPs in their general practice regarding important elements of the stepped care model (identification, severity assessment and stepped care treatment allocation) shortly before the revised Dutch multidisciplinary guideline for Depressive Disorders was published.</p><p>Methods: Data was collected through a self-report questionnaire sent to 500 randomly selected GPs. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were employed to investigate whether GP-related characteristics were associated with GPs' self-reported performance.</p><p>Results: The study involved 194 GPs (response rate: 39%). Responses indicated that 37% paid systematic attention to depression identification, 33% used a screening instrument, and 63% determined the severity of newly diagnosed depression, generally without using an instrument. Most GPs (72%) indicated to allocate stepped care treatment to the majority of their patients newly diagnosed with depression. However, more than 40% indicated to start with antidepressants, either alone or in combination with psychotherapy. Assessing the severity of newly diagnosed depression and clinical experience were positively associated with allocating stepped care treatment. Structural collaboration with mental health professionals was positively associated with assessing severity.</p><p>Conclusion: Delivering stepped care for depression in daily general practice could be further improved. Collaboration with mental health professionals and routine severity assessment of diagnosed depression are positively associated with allocating stepped care.</p>