Identifying value-based quality indicators for general hospital psychiatry

• Published in: Journal of psychosomatic research 2019-06, Vol.121, p.116-117
• Main Authors: van Schijndel, Maarten, Caarls, Petra, Van Wijngaarden, Jeroen, Wierdsma, Andre, Lijmer, Jeroen, Boenink, Annette, Hoogendijk, Witte, Van Waarde, Jeroen, Busschbach, Jan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cost analysis; Feasibility; Feasibility studies; Hospitals; Insurance companies; Measurement; Nurse managers; Nurses; Patients; Physicians; Psychiatry; Quality; Quality control; Quality management; Stakeholders; Standardization; Variables; Working groups
• ISSN: 0022-3999; 1879-1360
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.03.054

Aim: To define generic quality indicators for general hospital psychiatry from the perspectives of patients, professionals (physicians, nurses, and managers), and payers (insurance companies). Methods: Quality variables were identified by reviewing the relevant literature. A working group consisting of patients', professionals1 and payers' representatives was mandated by their respective umbrella organizations. The working group prioritized the quality variables that were identified. Core values were defined and subsequently linked to preliminary quality indicators. These were tested for feasibility in ten hospitals in a four-week period. Stakeholder consultation took place by means of two invitational conferences and two written commentary rounds. Results: Forty-one quality variables were identified from the literature. After prioritization, seven core values were defined and translated to 22 preliminary indicators. Overall, the feasibility study showed high relevance scores and good implementability of the preliminary quality indicators. A final set of twenty-two quality indicators (17 structure, 3 process and 2 outcome indicators) was established using a consensus-based approach. Conclusion: wConsensus on a quality framework for general hospital psychiatry was built by incorporating the perspectives of relevant stakeholders. Results of the feasibility study suggest broad support and good implementability of the final quality indicators. Structural indicators were broadly defined, and process and outcome indicators are generic to facilitate quality measurement across settings. The quality indicator set can now be used to facilitate quality and outcome assessment, stimulate standardization of services, and help demonstrate (cost-) effectiveness.