System-Wide Implementation of ACT in Ontario: An Ongoing Improvement Effort

In the late 1990s, the government of Ontario undertook a province-wide implementation of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT). Capacity grew to 59 teams within 6 years. This paper describes the implementation process, focusing on three phases—start-up, or the enabling phase; feedback, or the reinforc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of behavioral health services & research 2009-07, Vol.36 (3), p.309-319
Main Authors: George, Lindsey, Durbin, Janet, Koegl, Christopher J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accountability
Assertive community treatment
Community and Environmental Psychology
Community Mental Health Centers
Community Psychiatry - economics
Community Psychiatry - organization & administration
Community service
Diffusion of Innovation
Feedback
Financing
Health Informatics
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Health Psychology
Humans
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Mental Disorders - rehabilitation
Mental Disorders - therapy
Ontario
Psychiatry
Public Health
Regular Article
Reinforcement
Severity of Illness Index
Staffing
Studies
Teams
Workforce planning
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the late 1990s, the government of Ontario undertook a province-wide implementation of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT). Capacity grew to 59 teams within 6 years. This paper describes the implementation process, focusing on three phases—start-up, or the enabling phase; feedback, or the reinforcement phase; and response, or the corrective action phase. Key implementation supports include an active oversight committee with representation from both the ministry and the field and the availability of the planning data on ACT performance. Three areas of underperformance were identified: lower than expected team caseloads, drift from the target client group, and significant under-staffing in the teams. Likely causes were suggested, and corrective actions developed, which centered on clarifying the ACT standards, especially related to intake criteria, rate of intake and staffing, increasing team funding, and establishing expectations for reporting and accountability. While these corrective responses are promising, implementation of infrastructure and mechanisms for providing systematic practice feedback is still underdeveloped.
ISSN:1094-3412
1556-3308
DOI:10.1007/s11414-008-9131-5